\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Sebastian PHILLIPS v. Richard V. SPENCER, Secretary of the Navy\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-15\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Sebastian PHILLIPS v. Richard V. SPENCER, Secretary of the Navy\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-15\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3451,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4639815,"string":"4,639,815"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"GLH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Appellant v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"GLH Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-16"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1176"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Rogers, Srinivasan, Pillard\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SRINIVASAN\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued January 9, 2019 Decided July 16, 2019\\n\\n No. 18-1176\\n\\n GLH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,\\n APPELLANT\\n\\n v.\\n\\n FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,\\n APPELLEE\\n\\n\\n On Appeal of Orders of the Federal Communications\\n Commission\\n\\n\\n Donald J. Evans argued the cause for appellant. With him\\non the briefs was Keenan P. Adamchak.\\n\\n David M. Gossett, Deputy General Counsel, Federal\\nCommunications Commission, argued the cause for appellee.\\nWith him on the brief were Thomas M. Johnson Jr., General\\nCounsel, Jacob M. Lewis, Associate General Counsel, and\\nPamela L. Smith, Counsel. Richard K. Welch, Deputy\\nAssociate General Counsel, entered an appearance.\\n\\n Before: ROGERS, SRINIVASAN, and PILLARD, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SRINIVASAN.\\n\\f 2\\n SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judge: In 2001, GLH\\nCommunications, Inc., a cellular telephone company, acquired\\na number of radio spectrum licenses from Leap Wireless\\nInternational, another cellular telephone company. Leap had\\noriginally purchased a handful of those licenses from the\\nFederal Communications Commission under an installment\\npayment program. When GLH acquired the licenses, it\\nassumed the obligation to make the installment payments.\\nGLH, though, failed to make the payments for some of the\\nlicenses, prompting the Commission to cancel those licenses\\nand reauction the underlying spectrum to new providers.\\n\\n In administrative proceedings before the Commission,\\nGLH challenged both the Commission’s decision to cancel the\\nlicenses and its refusal to give GLH a credit against its debt for\\nthe proceeds of the reauction. The Commission rejected\\nGLH’s arguments, and GLH now appeals. We conclude that\\nthe Commission acted appropriately in cancelling GLH’s\\nlicenses for failure to make the installment payments and in\\nrefusing to apply the reauction proceeds against GLH’s debt.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n The Federal Communications Commission has exclusive\\nauthority to grant licenses to use radio spectrum, and must, as\\na general matter, employ an auction system to assign licenses.\\nSee 47 U.S.C. §§ 307(a), 309(j). Congress identified various\\npurposes that the Commission must seek to promote when\\ndesigning an auction system. See id. § 309(j)(3). One of those\\npurposes is ensuring that licenses are disseminated “among a\\nwide variety of applicants, including small businesses.” Id.\\n§ 309(j)(3)(B).\\n\\n To that end, the Commission developed an installment\\nplan program, under which qualifying small businesses can pay\\n\\f 3\\nwinning auction bids in installment payments made over the\\nterm of the license. Such a program, the Commission reasoned,\\nwould enhance the ability of small businesses to participate in\\nspectrum auctions by reducing the up-front costs of a license.\\nThe structure, however, comes with a condition: any licenses\\nwon with an installment bid “shall be conditioned upon the full\\nand timely performance of the licensee’s payment obligations\\nunder the installment plan.” 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4). If an\\ninstallment-payment licensee misses a payment (and does not\\nmake up the payment within two quarter-long grace periods),\\nthe licensee “shall be in default, its license shall automatically\\ncancel, and it will be subject to debt collection procedures.” Id.\\n§ 1.2110(g)(4)(iv).\\n\\n In 1996, the Commission auctioned off a number of\\nlicenses covering radio spectrum to be used for cellular\\ntelephone service. Two of the winning bidders in that auction\\nwere (i) NTCH, the parent company of GLH at the time, and\\n(ii) a subsidiary of Leap Wireless International.\\n\\n Three years later, NTCH and Leap agreed to trade some of\\nthe licenses each had won in the auction. Although the NTCH\\nlicenses included in the deal had been fully paid at the time of\\nthe auction, six of the Leap licenses had been purchased using\\nthe installment program. In order to secure Commission\\napproval of the assignment of those licenses, GLH assumed\\nboth the security agreements executed by the Leap subsidiary\\nwhen it won the licenses and also the obligation to make all\\nremaining installment payments. At the same time, Leap\\nagreed to pay GLH the funds necessary to make the installment\\npayments each quarter.\\n\\n The arrangement evidently worked without complication\\nfor a couple of years. But in January 2003, Leap failed to make\\nits payment to GLH, and GLH then failed to make the next\\n\\f 4\\ninstallment payment to the Commission, due on January 31,\\n2003. Under the Commission’s two-grace-period rule, GLH\\nhad until July 31, 2003 to cure the payment delinquency. But\\ninstead of curing the delinquency, GLH filed a waiver request,\\nin which it explained the circumstances of the missed payment\\nand asked the Commission for a two-year waiver of its debt\\ncollection rules and payment deadlines to “allow GLH\\nadditional time to try to satisfy its obligations.” Request of\\nGLH Communications, Inc. for Temporary Waivers of\\nInstallment Payment Deadlines (47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)) and\\nDebt Collection Rules (47 C.F.R. § 1.1901 et seq.), at 6 (Apr.\\n16, 2003), J.A. 42.\\n\\n On July 18—approximately two weeks before the end of\\nGLH’s grace period—the Commission’s Auctions and\\nIndustry Analysis Division released an order denying GLH’s\\nrequest for a waiver of the payment deadlines. See In re\\nRequest of GLH Commc’ns, Inc. for Temporary Waivers of\\nInstallment Payment Deadlines, 18 FCC Rcd. 14,695 (2003),\\nJ.A. 76. The Division explained that “strict enforcement of the\\ninstallment payment rules enhances the integrity of the auction\\nand licensing process,” and determined that GLH had not\\nshown any unique circumstances rendering enforcement of the\\ndeadline inequitable. Id. ¶ 11; see id. ¶¶ 7–18.\\n\\n When the deadline arrived, GLH had paid its outstanding\\nobligations on only two of the six licenses. The remaining four\\nlicenses automatically cancelled under the governing\\nregulation. 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4). After the cancellation,\\nGLH filed a petition for reconsideration of the Division’s Order\\ndenying a waiver. In addition to the arguments made in its\\nwaiver request, GLH contended that the Commission had been\\nrequired by a statute, 47 U.S.C. § 312(c), to provide a hearing\\nbefore cancelling the licenses, and further argued that, if the\\n\\f 5\\nCommission decided to proceed with cancellation, it should\\nreturn the payments GLH had previously made.\\n\\n While GLH’s rehearing petition was pending, the\\nCommission reauctioned the spectrum covered by GLH’s\\ncancelled licenses to new buyers. The Commission’s Wireless\\nTelecommunications Bureau then released an order denying\\nthe petition for rehearing. See In re GLH Commc’ns, Inc., 22\\nFCC Rcd. 2411 (2007), J.A. 104. With respect to GLH’s\\nwaiver request, the Bureau’s Order largely repeated the\\nreasoning of the Division. See id. ¶¶ 12–22. With respect to\\nGLH’s new arguments, the Bureau determined that § 312(c)’s\\nhearing requirement does not apply to automatic cancellations\\nfor defaults under 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)(iv) and that GLH\\nwas not entitled to any refund of its previous payments. Id.\\n¶¶ 23–25.\\n\\n GLH then filed an application for review with the full\\nCommission, in which it repeated the arguments it had\\npreviously made before the Division and the Bureau. Because\\nthe spectrum had since been reauctioned, GLH also argued that\\nit was entitled to remission of any reauction proceeds\\nexceeding GLH’s debt.\\n\\n The Commission denied GLH’s application for review. In\\nre Alpine PCS, Inc., 255 FCC Rcd. 469 (2010), J.A. 163. It\\nlargely repeated the reasoning contained in the previous orders\\nand additionally concluded that GLH was not entitled to have\\nthe reauction proceeds set off against its debt. Id. ¶¶ 18–38,\\n47–50, 58–66, 83–85. GLH unsuccessfully sought rehearing\\nbefore the Commission, see In re GLH Commc’ns, Inc., 33\\nFCC Rcd. 5926 (2018), J.A. 220, and then brought this appeal.\\n\\f 6\\n II.\\n\\n GLH raises two groups of challenges to the Commission’s\\ndecision. It initially argues that the Commission erred in\\ncancelling its licenses, both because the decision to reject its\\nwaiver request was arbitrary and capricious and because it was\\nentitled to a pre-cancellation hearing. Then, GLH argues that\\neven if the Commission validly cancelled its licenses, the\\nCommission should have granted it a credit for the reauction\\nproceeds or forgiven its debt.\\n\\n “We review the FCC’s decision only to determine whether\\nit was ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or\\notherwise not in accordance with law.’ Our review is ‘very\\ndeferential.’” Press Commc’ns LLC v. FCC, 875 F.3d 1117,\\n1121 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (first quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); then\\nquoting Rural Cellular Ass’n v. FCC, 588 F.3d 1095, 1105\\n(D.C. Cir. 2009)) (citation omitted). A Commission decision\\nis arbitrary and capricious if the Commission “has relied on\\nfactors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely\\nfailed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered\\nan explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence\\nbefore the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be\\nascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency\\nexpertise.” Id. (quoting Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n v. State\\nFarm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)).\\n\\n A.\\n\\n We first address GLH’s arguments that the Commission\\nerred in denying GLH’s waiver request and failing to provide\\nit a hearing before cancelling its licenses.\\n\\f 7\\n 1.\\n\\n GLH contends that the Commission’s denial of its request\\nfor a waiver of the installment-payment deadline was arbitrary\\nand capricious. The Commission’s regulations allow it to grant\\na request to waive the installment payment rules if a licensee\\nshows either (i) that “[t]he underlying purpose of the rule(s)\\nwould not be served or would be frustrated by application to\\nthe instant case, and that a grant of the requested waiver would\\nbe in the public interest,” or (ii) that “[i]n view of unique or\\nunusual factual circumstances of the instant case, application\\nof the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly burdensome or\\ncontrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no\\nreasonable alternative.” 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3).\\n\\n In rejecting GLH’s waiver request, the Commission\\nexplained that the auction system is designed to award each\\nlicense “to the party that placed the highest value on the\\nspectrum.” In re Alpine PCS, Inc., 255 FCC Rcd. 469, at\\n¶¶ 20–21. But “allow[ing] licensees to keep their licenses after\\nthey had failed to comply with the Commission’s payment\\nrules” would interfere with that goal by “increas[ing] the\\nincentive for bidders to make bids they could not pay and\\nreduc[ing] opportunities for other bidders to win licenses.” Id.\\n¶ 21. As a result, the Commission explained, “strict\\nenforcement of the installment payment rules preserves a fair\\nand efficient licensing process and promotes the rapid\\ndeployment of services for the benefit of the public,” and the\\nrationale for strict enforcement applies “whether the licensee\\nacquired the license directly through competitive bidding or\\nthrough assignment in the secondary market.” Id. The\\nCommission thus had previously granted a waiver request\\n“only after finding that there was no serious question regarding\\nthe defaulting licensee’s ongoing ability and willingness to\\nfulfill its payment obligations despite the default and, therefore,\\n\\f 8\\nno question regarding the presumption that it remained best\\nsuited to utilize the spectrum.” Id. ¶ 22.\\n\\n Applying that approach to GLH’s waiver request, the\\nCommission determined that GLH had not demonstrated an\\n“ongoing financial ability and willingness to fulfill [its]\\npayment obligations post-default.” Id. ¶ 29. The Commission\\nconcluded that granting GLH’s request therefore would serve\\nneither the purposes of the automatic-cancellation rule nor the\\npublic interest. See id. ¶ 31. Additionally, the Commission\\nfound that GLH had not demonstrated any “unique factual\\ncircumstances” entitling it to a waiver. Id. ¶ 32. The\\nCommission explained that “claims regarding financial\\ndifficulties resulting from a licensee’s business decisions and\\ncommercial dealings, including those in which a third party has\\nwithdrawn its financial support, do not amount to unique facts\\nor circumstances that make application of the automatic\\ncancellation rule inequitable, burdensome, or contrary to the\\npublic interest,” because the Commission “cannot take into\\naccount the private business arrangements that an applicant has\\nmade to finance its successful auction bid.” Id. (citation and\\nalteration omitted).\\n\\n The Commission’s explanation of its decision, at least on\\nits face, is more than adequate to survive\\narbitrary-and-capricious review. The Commission\\nappropriately explained the legal standard, examined the\\nparticular facts of GLH’s case, and reasonably applied that\\nstandard to those facts. GLH advances three arguments as to\\nwhy the Commission’s decision nonetheless is arbitrary and\\ncapricious, none of which we find persuasive.\\n\\n First, GLH contends that the public interest favored\\ngranting its waiver request because it had already built the\\nnecessary infrastructure and begun providing cellular service\\n\\f 9\\nbefore its default. Although avoiding a discontinuation of\\nongoing service weighed in GLH’s favor, the Commission\\nconsidered that factor and determined that the “broader public\\ninterest in preserving the integrity and efficiency of the\\nCommission’s auction process, as well as the Commission’s\\nobligation to fairly and consistently enforce its installment\\npayment rules,” outweighed the public “interest in a particular\\nlicensee’s provision of service.” Id. ¶ 37. That determination\\nwas reasonable and fell squarely within the Commission’s\\ntechnical competence.\\n\\n Second, GLH asserts that the Commission’s desire to\\npreserve the integrity of the auction process should not have\\ncarried the day because GLH acquired its licenses by\\nassignment rather than in an auction. That argument, too, was\\nconsidered and rejected by the Commission. See id. ¶ 21 &\\nn.111 (citing In re GLH Commc’ns, Inc., 22 FCC Rcd. 2411, at\\n¶ 15). As the underlying Bureau Order explained, a winning\\nbidder “demonstrat[es] the integrity of its valuation by paying\\nthe amount of the winning bids,” and that demonstration\\ncontinues past assignment when an assignee “assume[s] the\\nwinning bidder’s obligation to fully and timely pay the amount\\nof the winning bids.” In re GLH Commc’ns, Inc., 22 FCC Rcd.\\n2411, at ¶ 15. Allowing an original purchaser who is unable to\\nmeet its obligations simply to assign the license with the\\nunderstanding that the Commission will treat the assignee more\\nleniently could compromise the Commission’s ability to ensure\\nthe integrity of the underlying valuation. The Commission thus\\nreasonably concluded that an assignee’s timely payment “is\\nimportant to the integrity of the auctions program.” In re\\nAlpine PCS, Inc., 255 FCC Rcd. 469, at ¶ 21 n.111.\\n\\n Third, GLH argues that the Commission’s rejection of its\\nwaiver request was inconsistent with the Commission’s 1997\\ndecision to provide a suite of debt-relief options to distressed\\n\\f 10\\ninstallment payers. See In re Amendment of the Comm’n’s\\nRules Regarding Installment Payment Fin. for Personal\\nCommc’ns Servs. (PCS) Licenses, Second Report and Order\\nand Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd.\\n16,436 (1997). We are unable to consider that argument\\nbecause GLH did not appropriately raise it before the\\nCommission. See 47 U.S.C. § 405(a). GLH advanced the\\nargument only in a single oblique reference in its petition for\\nreconsideration before the Bureau. See GLH Pet. for Recons.\\n2 & n.3, J.A. 90. That single reference, however, was\\ninsufficient to provide the Commission “a fair opportunity to\\npass on” GLH’s argument, Time Warner Ent’mt Co. v. FCC,\\n144 F.3d 75, 79 (D.C. Cir. 1998), both because it was only a\\npassing reference and also because GLH failed to renew the\\nargument in its application for review before the Commission\\nitself, see Coal. for Noncommercial Media v. FCC, 249 F.3d\\n1005, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2001).\\n\\n For those reasons, we conclude that the Commission’s\\ndenial of GLH’s waiver request was not arbitrary or capricious.\\n\\n 2.\\n\\n GLH also contends that 47 U.S.C. § 312(c) required the\\nCommission to hold a hearing before cancelling GLH’s\\nlicenses. That provision requires the Commission to hold a\\nhearing “[b]efore revoking a license . . . pursuant to subsection\\n(a).” 47 U.S.C. § 312(c). Subsection (a), in turn, grants the\\nCommission authority to revoke a station license for seven\\nspecific reasons, such as “false statements knowingly made . . .\\nin the application,” “willful or repeated failure to operate\\nsubstantially as set forth in the license,” and “willful or\\nrepeated violation of, or willful or repeated failure to observe[,]\\nany provision of this chapter or any rule or regulation of the”\\nCommission. Id. § 312(a).\\n\\f 11\\n As the Commission concluded in its Order, see In re\\nAlpine PCS, Inc., 255 FCC Rcd. 469, at ¶¶ 84–85, GLH’s\\nlicenses were not revoked for any of the reasons enumerated in\\n§ 312(a). Instead, they were automatically cancelled under the\\napplicable regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)(iv), when GLH\\ndefaulted on its installment payments. See 47 C.F.R.\\n§ 1.2110(g)(4)(iv) (“If an eligible entity obligated to make\\ninstallment payments fails to pay the total Required Installment\\nPayment, interest and any late payment fees associated with the\\nRequired Installment Payment within two quarters (6 months)\\nof the Required Installment Payment due date, it shall be in\\ndefault, its license shall automatically cancel, and it will be\\nsubject to debt collection procedures.”). The terms of § 312(c)\\nthus do not afford GLH a right to a pre-cancellation hearing:\\n§ 312(c) provides a hearing right for revocations “pursuant to”\\n§ 312(a), and GLH’s licenses were not cancelled pursuant to\\n§ 312(a).\\n\\n GLH argues that, under that reading, the Commission\\ncould regulate its way around § 312(c) by simply repeating\\n§ 312(a)’s statutory grounds for revocation in a regulation,\\nconditioning licenses on compliance with the regulation, and\\nthen cancelling licenses upon a failure to comply without\\naffording any hearing. GLH’s argument might have some\\nforce if the Commission had in fact parroted § 312(a) in\\nregulations and then relied on those regulations to cancel\\nGLH’s licenses. In such a situation, it might fairly be said that\\nthe licenses were cancelled “pursuant to” both § 312(a) and the\\nregulations. But that is not what happened here. Rather, the\\nunderlying reason for cancellation—that GLH defaulted on its\\ninstallment payments—does not appear in § 312(a) at all. The\\ncancellation of GLH’s licenses then cannot have taken place\\nunder § 312(a), and § 312(c) did not afford GLH a right to a\\npre-cancellation hearing.\\n\\f 12\\n B.\\n\\n In addition to arguing that the Commission erred in\\ncancelling GLH’s licenses, GLH also argues that, now that the\\nunderlying auction spectrum has been resold, it is entitled to\\ncompensation from the reauction or a forgiveness of its debt.\\n\\n 1.\\n\\n GLH first contends that the Uniform Commercial Code\\ngoverns its relationship with the Commission and that the UCC\\nentitles GLH to receive any reauction proceeds exceeding the\\namount of its debt to the Commission. With respect to that\\nargument, GLH and the Commission initially agree that, in the\\nabsence of any on-point statute, a commercial transaction\\nbetween the United States and a private party is governed by\\nfederal common law. See GLH Br. 39–40; FCC Br. 29 (citing\\nLeonard J. Kennedy, Esq., & Richard S. Denning, Esq., 11\\nFCC Rcd. 21,572, 21,577 (1996)); cf. United States v. Kimbell\\nFoods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 728–29 (1979); Clearfield Trust Co.\\nv. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 366–67 (1943). The content of\\nthat common law turns on a variety of factors, such as whether\\nthere is a need for a uniform federal standard or whether\\n“application of a federal rule would disrupt commercial\\nrelationships predicated on state law.” Kimbell Foods, 440\\nU.S. at 728–29. GLH argues, and the Commission has\\npreviously stated, that consideration of those factors should\\nlead a federal court to “apply the basic principles of Article 9\\nof the UCC” to secured transactions between the Commission\\nand licensees, modifying them “as necessary to produce a\\nuniform national result consistent with Congressional intent\\nand FCC policies set forth in the Communications Act and\\napplicable FCC rules and orders.” Leonard J. Kennedy, Esq.,\\n& Richard S. Denning, Esq., 11 FCC Rcd. at 21,578; see also\\nGLH Br. 39–40.\\n\\f 13\\n Assuming for the sake of argument that consideration of\\nthe appropriate factors would lead us to adopt the principles of\\nthe UCC to the extent they do not conflict with federal interests\\nor policies, we cannot accept GLH’s argument that the UCC\\ngoverns the Commission’s actions in this case. “Article 9 of\\nthe UCC sets forth a secured creditor’s lien-enforcement\\nremedies,” which means it would support GLH’s “claim of\\nentitlement to proceeds from the FCC’s sale of new licenses\\nonly if the FCC’s cancellation of the licenses was a lien-\\nenforcement remedy under the UCC.” In re Magnacom\\nWireless, LLC, 503 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2007). But unlike\\na private party, the Commission does not act only as a creditor,\\neven when dealing with installment payers owing it a debt.\\nInstead, the Commission also acts as a regulator. And while\\nthe Security Agreement assumed by GLH acknowledges that a\\ndefault will trigger automatic cancellation pursuant to 47\\nC.F.R. § 1.2110, see Security Agreement ¶ 8(a), J.A. 11, the\\nauthority to cancel the licenses comes not from the Security\\nAgreement but from the referenced regulation.\\n\\n Consequently, the Commission “had a regulatory . . . right\\nto cancel [GLH’s] licenses” when GLH defaulted, and that\\n“right was separate and independent from the FCC’s rights as\\na secured creditor.” Magnacom, 503 F.3d at 994; cf. Security\\nAgreement ¶ 2, J.A. 8 (acknowledging that the FCC’s security\\ninterest in the licenses is “not in derogation of any of the\\nCommission’s regulatory authority over the License[s]”).\\n“Because the FCC’s license cancellation is not a UCC lien-\\nenforcement remedy, the UCC’s requirements are simply\\ninapplicable” to the cancellation. Magnacom, 503 F.3d at 994.\\nAnd because GLH held an interest only in the licenses and not\\nin the underlying spectrum, see Security Agreement ¶ 2, J.A.\\n8; 47 U.S.C. § 301, once the licenses were cancelled pursuant\\nto the Commission’s regulatory authority, GLH had no claim\\n\\f 14\\nunder the UCC to the proceeds of the reauction of the\\nunderlying spectrum.\\n\\n 2.\\n\\n Next, GLH argues that the Commission’s refusal to offset\\nits debt with the proceeds of the auction constituted an\\nimpermissible retroactive reinterpretation of 47 C.F.R.\\n§ 1.2104(g)(2). That regulation establishes a specified penalty\\nfor high bidders who default or are disqualified “after the\\nclose” of a license auction. In GLH’s view, the penalty set\\nforth in that regulation should cap its exposure, such that it\\nshould effectively be entitled to a set-off (from the reauction\\nproceeds) of any additional exposure.\\n\\n GLH’s argument derives from the history of the\\nCommission’s interpretation of the regulation—concerning, in\\nparticular, the applicability of the regulation to installment\\npayers. Under the version of the regulation in effect in 1996, a\\nbidder who defaulted “after the close” of an auction was\\n“subject to a penalty equal to the difference between the\\namount bid and the amount of the winning bid the next time the\\nlicense is offered by the” Commission “plus an additional\\npenalty equal to 3 percent of the subsequent winning bid” or\\nthe defaulter’s bid (whichever was lower). GLH Br. SA-7\\n(quoting 47 C.F.R. § 1.2104(g) (1996)).\\n\\n In 1997, the Commission released an order explaining that,\\nwhen an installment payer defaults, its license “will be\\ncancelled automatically and the Commission will initiate debt\\ncollection procedures” pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110, but that\\n§ 1.2110 did “not clearly indicate . . . whether under these\\ncircumstances the licensee will be liable for the default\\npayment set forth in Section 1.2104(g).” In re Amendment of\\nPart I of the Comm’n’s Rules – Competitive Bidding\\n\\f 15\\nProcedures, 13 FCC Rcd. 374, 442 (1997) (1997 Order). In\\ndetermining that such defaulters should not be liable for the\\npayment described in § 1.2104(g), the Commission concluded\\nthat “an additional payment requirement for licensees\\ndefaulting on installments is not necessary” because the\\nCommission’s “current rules and installment payment terms\\nare adequate to discourage defaults,” and “the conditions on the\\nface of each license and the terms of the notes and security\\nagreements executed by licensees provide the Commission\\nappropriate remedies that will ensure that defaulted licenses are\\nreturned to the Commission for reauction and that all\\noutstanding debts, as well as the Commission’s costs, are\\nrecoverable.” Id. at 443.\\n\\n The Commission thereby explained in the 1997 Order that\\ninstallment payment defaulters would not be liable for the\\n§ 1.2104(g) penalty payment (and explained why the\\nCommission adopted that interpretation of § 1.2104(g)). But\\ntwo later statements in the Order appeared to suggest that\\ndefaulters in fact would be liable for the payments. First, the\\nOrder stated that, “by making licensees who default on an\\ninstallment payment subject to the default payment set forth in\\nSection 1.2104(g)(2), we create an additional deterrent to\\nlicensees considering default as a solution to financing\\nshortfalls.” Id. at 446. Second, the Order stated that, “upon\\ndefault on an installment payment, a license will automatically\\ncancel without further action by the Commission, the licensee\\nwill become subject to the default payment set forth in Section\\n1.2104(g) of our rules . . . , and the Commission will initiate\\ndebt collection procedures against the licensee.” Id. at 446–47.\\n\\n In an attempt to rectify any confusion created by the\\napparent contradictions in the Order, the Commission amended\\nthe Order the following year to remove the language in the\\nsecond sentence quoted above saying that “the licensee will\\n\\f 16\\nbecome subject to the default payment set forth in Section\\n1.2104(g) of our rules”; but the amendment erroneously failed\\nto remove the first sentence. See id. at Erratum ¶ 8. In two\\nsubsequent orders in 2000 and 2004, the Commission\\neliminated any remaining confusion about the applicability of\\nthe § 1.2014(g) penalty provision to installment-payment\\ndefaulters by reaffirming that the penalty provision does not in\\nfact apply to such defaulters. See In re Amendment of Part I of\\nthe Comm’n’s Rules – Competitive Bidding Procedures, 15\\nFCC Rcd. 15,293 (2000) (2000 Order); In re Amendment of\\nPart I of the Comm’n’s Rules – Competitive Bidding\\nProcedures, 19 FCC Rcd. 2551 (2004) (2004 Order).\\n\\n Under GLH’s view of that history, it did not become clear\\nuntil the 2004 Order (after GLH had defaulted) that\\n§ 1.2104(g)(2) does not apply to installment-payment debtors.\\nAnd under GLH’s reading, applying § 1.2104(g)(2) to GLH’s\\ndefault would effectively entitle it to a set-off of the reauction\\nproceeds against its debt. Refusing to grant it a set-off, GLH\\nargues, violates the principle against retroactivity embedded in\\nthe Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 551(4), by\\nimposing the higher penalties mandated by the 2004 Order\\n(rather than the lower penalties mandated by the 1997 Order)\\non its default.\\n\\n We are unpersuaded by GLH’s argument. First, GLH\\nmisunderstands the question considered by the Commission in\\nthe 1997 Order. GLH appears to believe that, if the\\nCommission had concluded that § 1.2104(g) applies to\\ninstallment payers, GLH then would have been entitled to the\\neffective set-off it reads into that provision. But in actuality,\\nthe Commission indicated at every step of the way that\\ninstallment payers were always subject to the cancellation and\\ndebt-collection penalties described in the separate regulation\\nspecifically addressing installment-payment defaults, 47\\n\\f 17\\nC.F.R. § 1.2110, including full liability for the purchase price\\nof the licenses. The only question the Commission considered\\nwith respect to installment payers and § 1.2104(g)(2) was\\nwhether defaulting payers would also be subject to the 3%\\npenalty and deficiency payment described in § 1.2104(g). E.g.,\\n1997 Order, 13 FCC Rcd. at 446 (“[B]y making licensees who\\ndefault on an installment payment subject to the default\\npayment set forth in Section 1.2104(g)(2), we create an\\nadditional deterrent to licensees considering default as a\\nsolution to financing shortfalls.” (emphasis added)). In short,\\neven if GLH were correct that it did not become clear until\\n2004 that § 1.2104(g) does not apply to its default, it was\\nhelped—not hurt—by that clarification.\\n\\n Second, even assuming GLH were correct about the\\nquestion under consideration in the 1997 Order, the\\nCommission had made sufficiently clear, at least by the time of\\nGLH’s assumption of the installment-payment obligations, that\\n§ 1.2104(g) did not apply to installment payers who defaulted\\nafter the award of a license. The 1997 Order engaged in a\\ndetailed discussion of the Commission’s rationale for finding\\nthat § 1.2104(g) does not apply to installment payers. Although\\nGLH identifies some seemingly contradictory language in a\\nlater portion of the Order, no reasonable licensee reading the\\nOrder as a whole would have concluded that § 1.2104(g)\\napplies to installment payers. And one of the contradictory\\nstatements was removed in an erratum issued the following\\nyear, which would have reinforced the recognition that the\\nCommission believed § 1.2104(g) does not apply to installment\\npayers and that those contradictory statements were simply an\\nerror. The 2000 and 2004 Orders merely clarified, rather than\\nchanged, the Commission’s position. As a result, the\\nCommission’s refusal to grant GLH a set-off of its debt with\\nthe reauction proceeds did not involve any impermissible\\n\\f 18\\nretroactive change in the Commission’s interpretation of\\n§ 1.2104(g).\\n\\n 3.\\n\\n Finally, GLH argues that because the proceeds of the\\nspectrum reauction exceeded the amount of GLH’s outstanding\\ndebt, the Commission has been made whole and GLH is\\nentitled to a forgiveness of its debt. GLH’s argument stems\\nfrom an opinion letter released by the Commission responding\\nto concerns about the note and security agreement that the\\nCommission required installment payers to execute. See\\nLeonard J. Kennedy, Esq., & Richard S. Denning, Esq., 11\\nFCC Rcd. 21,572. One of those concerns was that, in the event\\nof a default, the Commission could both reauction the spectrum\\nand collect on the note, resulting in a double recovery. Id. at\\n21,576. According to the Commission, that concern was\\nmisplaced because “the equity principles established” in the\\nDebt Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. ch. 37, and Federal Claims\\nCollection Standards, 31 C.F.R. ch. IX, “should allow the\\nfederal government to forgive any outstanding debt so long as\\nit has been made whole (penalties and costs included) in a\\nsubsequent auction.” Leonard J. Kennedy, Esq., & Richard S.\\nDenning, Esq., 11 FCC Rcd. at 21,576. Therefore, GLH\\nargues, because the Commission has been made whole through\\nthe reauctions in this case, it must forgive GLH’s outstanding\\ndebt.\\n\\n Although GLH is correct that, based on the opinion letter,\\nthe Commission may agree that GLH’s debt should be forgiven\\nif the Commission has been made whole, GLH has raised its\\nargument in the wrong proceeding. The Debt Collection Act\\nand Federal Claims Collection Standards provide a mechanism\\nfor (and a set of standards governing) debt compromise\\nrequests, and place the ultimate authority to compromise debts\\n\\f 19\\nas large as GLH’s in the Department of Justice rather than in\\nthe Commission. See 31 C.F.R. § 902.1(b). GLH thus can raise\\nits debt-forgiveness argument in a petition for debt compromise\\nthat it can submit to the Commission, see 47 C.F.R. § 1.1915,\\nor as a defense in any future debt-collection action (the\\nCommission has not initiated any collection action), rather than\\nas a subsidiary argument in this license-cancellation\\nproceeding. (And, if GLH’s argument persuades the\\nCommission that a compromise is appropriate, the\\nCommission can seek compromise approval from the\\nDepartment of Justice.)\\n\\n That understanding is confirmed both by the 2004 Order,\\nsee 2004 Order, 19 FCC Rcd. at 2558 (explaining that the\\nopinion letter “makes clear that any forgiveness of a debt\\narising from an installment payment default would occur only\\nin the course of federal debt collection proceedings”), and also\\nby Commission counsel in oral argument, see Oral Argument\\n23:16–27:43. We thus affirm the Commission’s decision not\\nto consider the argument or forgive GLH’s debt in this\\nproceeding, understanding that GLH may initiate consideration\\nof its equitable argument for debt forgiveness by filing a\\npetition for debt compromise.\\n\\n * * * * *\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the\\nFederal Communications Commission.\\n\\n So ordered.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4417068/\", \"author_raw\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SRINIVASAN\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROGERS"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SRINIVASAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"PILLARD"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4639815/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: GLH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Appellant v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-16\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued January 9, 2019 Decided July 16, 2019\n\n No. 18-1176\n\n GLH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,\n APPELLANT\n\n v.\n\n FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,\n APPELLEE\n\n\n On Appeal of Orders of the Federal Communications\n Commission\n\n\n Donald J. Evans argued the cause for appellant. With him\non the briefs was Keenan P. Adamchak.\n\n David M. Gossett, Deputy General Counsel, Federal\nCommunications Commission, argued the cause for appellee.\nWith him on the brief were Thomas M. Johnson Jr., General\nCounsel, Jacob M. Lewis, Associate General Counsel, and\nPamela L. Smith, Counsel. Richard K. Welch, Deputy\nAssociate General Counsel, entered an appearance.\n\n Before: ROGERS, SRINIVASAN, and PILLARD, Circuit\nJudges.\n\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SRINIVASAN.\n\f 2\n SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judge: In 2001, GLH\nCommunications, Inc., a cellular telephone company, acquired\na number of radio spectrum licenses from Leap Wireless\nInternational, another cellular telephone company. Leap had\noriginally purchased a handful of those licenses from the\nFederal Communications Commission under an installment\npayment program. When GLH acquired the licenses, it\nassumed the obligation to make the installment payments.\nGLH, though, failed to make the payments for some of the\nlicenses, prompting the Commission to cancel those licenses\nand reauction the underlying spectrum to new providers.\n\n In administrative proceedings before the Commission,\nGLH challenged both the Commission’s decision to cancel the\nlicenses and its refusal to give GLH a credit against its debt for\nthe proceeds of the reauction. The Commission rejected\nGLH’s arguments, and GLH now appeals. We conclude that\nthe Commission acted appropriately in cancelling GLH’s\nlicenses for failure to make the installment payments and in\nrefusing to apply the reauction proceeds against GLH’s debt.\n\n I.\n\n The Federal Communications Commission has exclusive\nauthority to grant licenses to use radio spectrum, and must, as\na general matter, employ an auction system to assign licenses.\nSee 47 U.S.C. §§ 307(a), 309(j). Congress identified various\npurposes that the Commission must seek to promote when\ndesigning an auction system. See id. § 309(j)(3). One of those\npurposes is ensuring that licenses are disseminated “among a\nwide variety of applicants, including small businesses.” Id.\n§ 309(j)(3)(B).\n\n To that end, the Commission developed an installment\nplan program, under which qualifying small businesses can pay\n\f 3\nwinning auction bids in installment payments made over the\nterm of the license. Such a program, the Commission reasoned,\nwould enhance the ability of small businesses to participate in\nspectrum auctions by reducing the up-front costs of a license.\nThe structure, however, comes with a condition: any licenses\nwon with an installment bid “shall be conditioned upon the full\nand timely performance of the licensee’s payment obligations\nunder the installment plan.” 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4). If an\ninstallment-payment licensee misses a payment (and does not\nmake up the payment within two quarter-long grace periods),\nthe licensee “shall be in default, its license shall automatically\ncancel, and it will be subject to debt collection procedures.” Id.\n§ 1.2110(g)(4)(iv).\n\n In 1996, the Commission auctioned off a number of\nlicenses covering radio spectrum to be used for cellular\ntelephone service. Two of the winning bidders in that auction\nwere (i) NTCH, the parent company of GLH at the time, and\n(ii) a subsidiary of Leap Wireless International.\n\n Three years later, NTCH and Leap agreed to trade some of\nthe licenses each had won in the auction. Although the NTCH\nlicenses included in the deal had been fully paid at the time of\nthe auction, six of the Leap licenses had been purchased using\nthe installment program. In order to secure Commission\napproval of the assignment of those licenses, GLH assumed\nboth the security agreements executed by the Leap subsidiary\nwhen it won the licenses and also the obligation to make all\nremaining installment payments. At the same time, Leap\nagreed to pay GLH the funds necessary to make the installment\npayments each quarter.\n\n The arrangement evidently worked without complication\nfor a couple of years. But in January 2003, Leap failed to make\nits payment to GLH, and GLH then failed to make the next\n\f 4\ninstallment payment to the Commission, due on January 31,\n2003. Under the Commission’s two-grace-period rule, GLH\nhad until July 31, 2003 to cure the payment delinquency. But\ninstead of curing the delinquency, GLH filed a waiver request,\nin which it explained the circumstances of the missed payment\nand asked the Commission for a two-year waiver of its debt\ncollection rules and payment deadlines to “allow GLH\nadditional time to try to satisfy its obligations.” Request of\nGLH Communications, Inc. for Temporary Waivers of\nInstallment Payment Deadlines (47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)) and\nDebt Collection Rules (47 C.F.R. § 1.1901 et seq.), at 6 (Apr.\n16, 2003), J.A. 42.\n\n On July 18—approximately two weeks before the end of\nGLH’s grace period—the Commission’s Auctions and\nIndustry Analysis Division released an order denying GLH’s\nrequest for a waiver of the payment deadlines. See In re\nRequest of GLH Commc’ns, Inc. for Temporary Waivers of\nInstallment Payment Deadlines, 18 FCC Rcd. 14,695 (2003),\nJ.A. 76. The Division explained that “strict enforcement of the\ninstallment payment rules enhances the integrity of the auction\nand licensing process,” and determined that GLH had not\nshown any unique circumstances rendering enforcement of the\ndeadline inequitable. Id. ¶ 11; see id. ¶¶ 7–18.\n\n When the deadline arrived, GLH had paid its outstanding\nobligations on only two of the six licenses. The remaining four\nlicenses automatically cancelled under the governing\nregulation. 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4). After the cancellation,\nGLH filed a petition for reconsideration of the Division’s Order\ndenying a waiver. In addition to the arguments made in its\nwaiver request, GLH contended that the Commission had been\nrequired by a statute, 47 U.S.C. § 312(c), to provide a hearing\nbefore cancelling the licenses, and further argued that, if the\n\f 5\nCommission decided to proceed with cancellation, it should\nreturn the payments GLH had previously made.\n\n While GLH’s rehearing petition was pending, the\nCommission reauctioned the spectrum covered by GLH’s\ncancelled licenses to new buyers. The Commission’s Wireless\nTelecommunications Bureau then released an order denying\nthe petition for rehearing. See In re GLH Commc’ns, Inc., 22\nFCC Rcd. 2411 (2007), J.A. 104. With respect to GLH’s\nwaiver request, the Bureau’s Order largely repeated the\nreasoning of the Division. See id. ¶¶ 12–22. With respect to\nGLH’s new arguments, the Bureau determined that § 312(c)’s\nhearing requirement does not apply to automatic cancellations\nfor defaults under 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)(iv) and that GLH\nwas not entitled to any refund of its previous payments. Id.\n¶¶ 23–25.\n\n GLH then filed an application for review with the full\nCommission, in which it repeated the arguments it had\npreviously made before the Division and the Bureau. Because\nthe spectrum had since been reauctioned, GLH also argued that\nit was entitled to remission of any reauction proceeds\nexceeding GLH’s debt.\n\n The Commission denied GLH’s application for review. In\nre Alpine PCS, Inc., 255 FCC Rcd. 469 (2010), J.A. 163. It\nlargely repeated the reasoning contained in the previous orders\nand additionally concluded that GLH was not entitled to have\nthe reauction proceeds set off against its debt. Id. ¶¶ 18–38,\n47–50, 58–66, 83–85. GLH unsuccessfully sought rehearing\nbefore the Commission, see In re GLH Commc’ns, Inc., 33\nFCC Rcd. 5926 (2018), J.A. 220, and then brought this appeal.\n\f 6\n II.\n\n GLH raises two groups of challenges to the Commission’s\ndecision. It initially argues that the Commission erred in\ncancelling its licenses, both because the decision to reject its\nwaiver request was arbitrary and capricious and because it was\nentitled to a pre-cancellation hearing. Then, GLH argues that\neven if the Commission validly cancelled its licenses, the\nCommission should have granted it a credit for the reauction\nproceeds or forgiven its debt.\n\n “We review the FCC’s decision only to determine whether\nit was ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or\notherwise not in accordance with law.’ Our review is ‘very\ndeferential.’” Press Commc’ns LLC v. FCC, 875 F.3d 1117,\n1121 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (first quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); then\nquoting Rural Cellular Ass’n v. FCC, 588 F.3d 1095, 1105\n(D.C. Cir. 2009)) (citation omitted). A Commission decision\nis arbitrary and capricious if the Commission “has relied on\nfactors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely\nfailed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered\nan explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence\nbefore the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be\nascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency\nexpertise.” Id. (quoting Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n v. State\nFarm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)).\n\n A.\n\n We first address GLH’s arguments that the Commission\nerred in denying GLH’s waiver request and failing to provide\nit a hearing before cancelling its licenses.\n\f 7\n 1.\n\n GLH contends that the Commission’s denial of its request\nfor a waiver of the installment-payment deadline was arbitrary\nand capricious. The Commission’s regulations allow it to grant\na request to waive the installment payment rules if a licensee\nshows either (i) that “[t]he underlying purpose of the rule(s)\nwould not be served or would be frustrated by application to\nthe instant case, and that a grant of the requested waiver would\nbe in the public interest,” or (ii) that “[i]n view of unique or\nunusual factual circumstances of the instant case, application\nof the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly burdensome or\ncontrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no\nreasonable alternative.” 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3).\n\n In rejecting GLH’s waiver request, the Commission\nexplained that the auction system is designed to award each\nlicense “to the party that placed the highest value on the\nspectrum.” In re Alpine PCS, Inc., 255 FCC Rcd. 469, at\n¶¶ 20–21. But “allow[ing] licensees to keep their licenses after\nthey had failed to comply with the Commission’s payment\nrules” would interfere with that goal by “increas[ing] the\nincentive for bidders to make bids they could not pay and\nreduc[ing] opportunities for other bidders to win licenses.” Id.\n¶ 21. As a result, the Commission explained, “strict\nenforcement of the installment payment rules preserves a fair\nand efficient licensing process and promotes the rapid\ndeployment of services for the benefit of the public,” and the\nrationale for strict enforcement applies “whether the licensee\nacquired the license directly through competitive bidding or\nthrough assignment in the secondary market.” Id. The\nCommission thus had previously granted a waiver request\n“only after finding that there was no serious question regarding\nthe defaulting licensee’s ongoing ability and willingness to\nfulfill its payment obligations despite the default and, therefore,\n\f 8\nno question regarding the presumption that it remained best\nsuited to utilize the spectrum.” Id. ¶ 22.\n\n Applying that approach to GLH’s waiver request, the\nCommission determined that GLH had not demonstrated an\n“ongoing financial ability and willingness to fulfill [its]\npayment obligations post-default.” Id. ¶ 29. The Commission\nconcluded that granting GLH’s request therefore would serve\nneither the purposes of the automatic-cancellation rule nor the\npublic interest. See id. ¶ 31. Additionally, the Commission\nfound that GLH had not demonstrated any “unique factual\ncircumstances” entitling it to a waiver. Id. ¶ 32. The\nCommission explained that “claims regarding financial\ndifficulties resulting from a licensee’s business decisions and\ncommercial dealings, including those in which a third party has\nwithdrawn its financial support, do not amount to unique facts\nor circumstances that make application of the automatic\ncancellation rule inequitable, burdensome, or contrary to the\npublic interest,” because the Commission “cannot take into\naccount the private business arrangements that an applicant has\nmade to finance its successful auction bid.” Id. (citation and\nalteration omitted).\n\n The Commission’s explanation of its decision, at least on\nits face, is more than adequate to survive\narbitrary-and-capricious review. The Commission\nappropriately explained the legal standard, examined the\nparticular facts of GLH’s case, and reasonably applied that\nstandard to those facts. GLH advances three arguments as to\nwhy the Commission’s decision nonetheless is arbitrary and\ncapricious, none of which we find persuasive.\n\n First, GLH contends that the public interest favored\ngranting its waiver request because it had already built the\nnecessary infrastructure and begun providing cellular service\n\f 9\nbefore its default. Although avoiding a discontinuation of\nongoing service weighed in GLH’s favor, the Commission\nconsidered that factor and determined that the “broader public\ninterest in preserving the integrity and efficiency of the\nCommission’s auction process, as well as the Commission’s\nobligation to fairly and consistently enforce its installment\npayment rules,” outweighed the public “interest in a particular\nlicensee’s provision of service.” Id. ¶ 37. That determination\nwas reasonable and fell squarely within the Commission’s\ntechnical competence.\n\n Second, GLH asserts that the Commission’s desire to\npreserve the integrity of the auction process should not have\ncarried the day because GLH acquired its licenses by\nassignment rather than in an auction. That argument, too, was\nconsidered and rejected by the Commission. See id. ¶ 21 &\nn.111 (citing In re GLH Commc’ns, Inc., 22 FCC Rcd. 2411, at\n¶ 15). As the underlying Bureau Order explained, a winning\nbidder “demonstrat[es] the integrity of its valuation by paying\nthe amount of the winning bids,” and that demonstration\ncontinues past assignment when an assignee “assume[s] the\nwinning bidder’s obligation to fully and timely pay the amount\nof the winning bids.” In re GLH Commc’ns, Inc., 22 FCC Rcd.\n2411, at ¶ 15. Allowing an original purchaser who is unable to\nmeet its obligations simply to assign the license with the\nunderstanding that the Commission will treat the assignee more\nleniently could compromise the Commission’s ability to ensure\nthe integrity of the underlying valuation. The Commission thus\nreasonably concluded that an assignee’s timely payment “is\nimportant to the integrity of the auctions program.” In re\nAlpine PCS, Inc., 255 FCC Rcd. 469, at ¶ 21 n.111.\n\n Third, GLH argues that the Commission’s rejection of its\nwaiver request was inconsistent with the Commission’s 1997\ndecision to provide a suite of debt-relief options to distressed\n\f 10\ninstallment payers. See In re Amendment of the Comm’n’s\nRules Regarding Installment Payment Fin. for Personal\nCommc’ns Servs. (PCS) Licenses, Second Report and Order\nand Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd.\n16,436 (1997). We are unable to consider that argument\nbecause GLH did not appropriately raise it before the\nCommission. See 47 U.S.C. § 405(a). GLH advanced the\nargument only in a single oblique reference in its petition for\nreconsideration before the Bureau. See GLH Pet. for Recons.\n2 & n.3, J.A. 90. That single reference, however, was\ninsufficient to provide the Commission “a fair opportunity to\npass on” GLH’s argument, Time Warner Ent’mt Co. v. FCC,\n144 F.3d 75, 79 (D.C. Cir. 1998), both because it was only a\npassing reference and also because GLH failed to renew the\nargument in its application for review before the Commission\nitself, see Coal. for Noncommercial Media v. FCC, 249 F.3d\n1005, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2001).\n\n For those reasons, we conclude that the Commission’s\ndenial of GLH’s waiver request was not arbitrary or capricious.\n\n 2.\n\n GLH also contends that 47 U.S.C. § 312(c) required the\nCommission to hold a hearing before cancelling GLH’s\nlicenses. That provision requires the Commission to hold a\nhearing “[b]efore revoking a license . . . pursuant to subsection\n(a).” 47 U.S.C. § 312(c). Subsection (a), in turn, grants the\nCommission authority to revoke a station license for seven\nspecific reasons, such as “false statements knowingly made . . .\nin the application,” “willful or repeated failure to operate\nsubstantially as set forth in the license,” and “willful or\nrepeated violation of, or willful or repeated failure to observe[,]\nany provision of this chapter or any rule or regulation of the”\nCommission. Id. § 312(a).\n\f 11\n As the Commission concluded in its Order, see In re\nAlpine PCS, Inc., 255 FCC Rcd. 469, at ¶¶ 84–85, GLH’s\nlicenses were not revoked for any of the reasons enumerated in\n§ 312(a). Instead, they were automatically cancelled under the\napplicable regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)(iv), when GLH\ndefaulted on its installment payments. See 47 C.F.R.\n§ 1.2110(g)(4)(iv) (“If an eligible entity obligated to make\ninstallment payments fails to pay the total Required Installment\nPayment, interest and any late payment fees associated with the\nRequired Installment Payment within two quarters (6 months)\nof the Required Installment Payment due date, it shall be in\ndefault, its license shall automatically cancel, and it will be\nsubject to debt collection procedures.”). The terms of § 312(c)\nthus do not afford GLH a right to a pre-cancellation hearing:\n§ 312(c) provides a hearing right for revocations “pursuant to”\n§ 312(a), and GLH’s licenses were not cancelled pursuant to\n§ 312(a).\n\n GLH argues that, under that reading, the Commission\ncould regulate its way around § 312(c) by simply repeating\n§ 312(a)’s statutory grounds for revocation in a regulation,\nconditioning licenses on compliance with the regulation, and\nthen cancelling licenses upon a failure to comply without\naffording any hearing. GLH’s argument might have some\nforce if the Commission had in fact parroted § 312(a) in\nregulations and then relied on those regulations to cancel\nGLH’s licenses. In such a situation, it might fairly be said that\nthe licenses were cancelled “pursuant to” both § 312(a) and the\nregulations. But that is not what happened here. Rather, the\nunderlying reason for cancellation—that GLH defaulted on its\ninstallment payments—does not appear in § 312(a) at all. The\ncancellation of GLH’s licenses then cannot have taken place\nunder § 312(a), and § 312(c) did not afford GLH a right to a\npre-cancellation hearing.\n\f 12\n B.\n\n In addition to arguing that the Commission erred in\ncancelling GLH’s licenses, GLH also argues that, now that the\nunderlying auction spectrum has been resold, it is entitled to\ncompensation from the reauction or a forgiveness of its debt.\n\n 1.\n\n GLH first contends that the Uniform Commercial Code\ngoverns its relationship with the Commission and that the UCC\nentitles GLH to receive any reauction proceeds exceeding the\namount of its debt to the Commission. With respect to that\nargument, GLH and the Commission initially agree that, in the\nabsence of any on-point statute, a commercial transaction\nbetween the United States and a private party is governed by\nfederal common law. See GLH Br. 39–40; FCC Br. 29 (citing\nLeonard J. Kennedy, Esq., & Richard S. Denning, Esq., 11\nFCC Rcd. 21,572, 21,577 (1996)); cf. United States v. Kimbell\nFoods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 728–29 (1979); Clearfield Trust Co.\nv. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 366–67 (1943). The content of\nthat common law turns on a variety of factors, such as whether\nthere is a need for a uniform federal standard or whether\n“application of a federal rule would disrupt commercial\nrelationships predicated on state law.” Kimbell Foods, 440\nU.S. at 728–29. GLH argues, and the Commission has\npreviously stated, that consideration of those factors should\nlead a federal court to “apply the basic principles of Article 9\nof the UCC” to secured transactions between the Commission\nand licensees, modifying them “as necessary to produce a\nuniform national result consistent with Congressional intent\nand FCC policies set forth in the Communications Act and\napplicable FCC rules and orders.” Leonard J. Kennedy, Esq.,\n& Richard S. Denning, Esq., 11 FCC Rcd. at 21,578; see also\nGLH Br. 39–40.\n\f 13\n Assuming for the sake of argument that consideration of\nthe appropriate factors would lead us to adopt the principles of\nthe UCC to the extent they do not conflict with federal interests\nor policies, we cannot accept GLH’s argument that the UCC\ngoverns the Commission’s actions in this case. “Article 9 of\nthe UCC sets forth a secured creditor’s lien-enforcement\nremedies,” which means it would support GLH’s “claim of\nentitlement to proceeds from the FCC’s sale of new licenses\nonly if the FCC’s cancellation of the licenses was a lien-\nenforcement remedy under the UCC.” In re Magnacom\nWireless, LLC, 503 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2007). But unlike\na private party, the Commission does not act only as a creditor,\neven when dealing with installment payers owing it a debt.\nInstead, the Commission also acts as a regulator. And while\nthe Security Agreement assumed by GLH acknowledges that a\ndefault will trigger automatic cancellation pursuant to 47\nC.F.R. § 1.2110, see Security Agreement ¶ 8(a), J.A. 11, the\nauthority to cancel the licenses comes not from the Security\nAgreement but from the referenced regulation.\n\n Consequently, the Commission “had a regulatory . . . right\nto cancel [GLH’s] licenses” when GLH defaulted, and that\n“right was separate and independent from the FCC’s rights as\na secured creditor.” Magnacom, 503 F.3d at 994; cf. Security\nAgreement ¶ 2, J.A. 8 (acknowledging that the FCC’s security\ninterest in the licenses is “not in derogation of any of the\nCommission’s regulatory authority over the License[s]”).\n“Because the FCC’s license cancellation is not a UCC lien-\nenforcement remedy, the UCC’s requirements are simply\ninapplicable” to the cancellation. Magnacom, 503 F.3d at 994.\nAnd because GLH held an interest only in the licenses and not\nin the underlying spectrum, see Security Agreement ¶ 2, J.A.\n8; 47 U.S.C. § 301, once the licenses were cancelled pursuant\nto the Commission’s regulatory authority, GLH had no claim\n\f 14\nunder the UCC to the proceeds of the reauction of the\nunderlying spectrum.\n\n 2.\n\n Next, GLH argues that the Commission’s refusal to offset\nits debt with the proceeds of the auction constituted an\nimpermissible retroactive reinterpretation of 47 C.F.R.\n§ 1.2104(g)(2). That regulation establishes a specified penalty\nfor high bidders who default or are disqualified “after the\nclose” of a license auction. In GLH’s view, the penalty set\nforth in that regulation should cap its exposure, such that it\nshould effectively be entitled to a set-off (from the reauction\nproceeds) of any additional exposure.\n\n GLH’s argument derives from the history of the\nCommission’s interpretation of the regulation—concerning, in\nparticular, the applicability of the regulation to installment\npayers. Under the version of the regulation in effect in 1996, a\nbidder who defaulted “after the close” of an auction was\n“subject to a penalty equal to the difference between the\namount bid and the amount of the winning bid the next time the\nlicense is offered by the” Commission “plus an additional\npenalty equal to 3 percent of the subsequent winning bid” or\nthe defaulter’s bid (whichever was lower). GLH Br. SA-7\n(quoting 47 C.F.R. § 1.2104(g) (1996)).\n\n In 1997, the Commission released an order explaining that,\nwhen an installment payer defaults, its license “will be\ncancelled automatically and the Commission will initiate debt\ncollection procedures” pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110, but that\n§ 1.2110 did “not clearly indicate . . . whether under these\ncircumstances the licensee will be liable for the default\npayment set forth in Section 1.2104(g).” In re Amendment of\nPart I of the Comm’n’s Rules – Competitive Bidding\n\f 15\nProcedures, 13 FCC Rcd. 374, 442 (1997) (1997 Order). In\ndetermining that such defaulters should not be liable for the\npayment described in § 1.2104(g), the Commission concluded\nthat “an additional payment requirement for licensees\ndefaulting on installments is not necessary” because the\nCommission’s “current rules and installment payment terms\nare adequate to discourage defaults,” and “the conditions on the\nface of each license and the terms of the notes and security\nagreements executed by licensees provide the Commission\nappropriate remedies that will ensure that defaulted licenses are\nreturned to the Commission for reauction and that all\noutstanding debts, as well as the Commission’s costs, are\nrecoverable.” Id. at 443.\n\n The Commission thereby explained in the 1997 Order that\ninstallment payment defaulters would not be liable for the\n§ 1.2104(g) penalty payment (and explained why the\nCommission adopted that interpretation of § 1.2104(g)). But\ntwo later statements in the Order appeared to suggest that\ndefaulters in fact would be liable for the payments. First, the\nOrder stated that, “by making licensees who default on an\ninstallment payment subject to the default payment set forth in\nSection 1.2104(g)(2), we create an additional deterrent to\nlicensees considering default as a solution to financing\nshortfalls.” Id. at 446. Second, the Order stated that, “upon\ndefault on an installment payment, a license will automatically\ncancel without further action by the Commission, the licensee\nwill become subject to the default payment set forth in Section\n1.2104(g) of our rules . . . , and the Commission will initiate\ndebt collection procedures against the licensee.” Id. at 446–47.\n\n In an attempt to rectify any confusion created by the\napparent contradictions in the Order, the Commission amended\nthe Order the following year to remove the language in the\nsecond sentence quoted above saying that “the licensee will\n\f 16\nbecome subject to the default payment set forth in Section\n1.2104(g) of our rules”; but the amendment erroneously failed\nto remove the first sentence. See id. at Erratum ¶ 8. In two\nsubsequent orders in 2000 and 2004, the Commission\neliminated any remaining confusion about the applicability of\nthe § 1.2014(g) penalty provision to installment-payment\ndefaulters by reaffirming that the penalty provision does not in\nfact apply to such defaulters. See In re Amendment of Part I of\nthe Comm’n’s Rules – Competitive Bidding Procedures, 15\nFCC Rcd. 15,293 (2000) (2000 Order); In re Amendment of\nPart I of the Comm’n’s Rules – Competitive Bidding\nProcedures, 19 FCC Rcd. 2551 (2004) (2004 Order).\n\n Under GLH’s view of that history, it did not become clear\nuntil the 2004 Order (after GLH had defaulted) that\n§ 1.2104(g)(2) does not apply to installment-payment debtors.\nAnd under GLH’s reading, applying § 1.2104(g)(2) to GLH’s\ndefault would effectively entitle it to a set-off of the reauction\nproceeds against its debt. Refusing to grant it a set-off, GLH\nargues, violates the principle against retroactivity embedded in\nthe Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 551(4), by\nimposing the higher penalties mandated by the 2004 Order\n(rather than the lower penalties mandated by the 1997 Order)\non its default.\n\n We are unpersuaded by GLH’s argument. First, GLH\nmisunderstands the question considered by the Commission in\nthe 1997 Order. GLH appears to believe that, if the\nCommission had concluded that § 1.2104(g) applies to\ninstallment payers, GLH then would have been entitled to the\neffective set-off it reads into that provision. But in actuality,\nthe Commission indicated at every step of the way that\ninstallment payers were always subject to the cancellation and\ndebt-collection penalties described in the separate regulation\nspecifically addressing installment-payment defaults, 47\n\f 17\nC.F.R. § 1.2110, including full liability for the purchase price\nof the licenses. The only question the Commission considered\nwith respect to installment payers and § 1.2104(g)(2) was\nwhether defaulting payers would also be subject to the 3%\npenalty and deficiency payment described in § 1.2104(g). E.g.,\n1997 Order, 13 FCC Rcd. at 446 (“[B]y making licensees who\ndefault on an installment payment subject to the default\npayment set forth in Section 1.2104(g)(2), we create an\nadditional deterrent to licensees considering default as a\nsolution to financing shortfalls.” (emphasis added)). In short,\neven if GLH were correct that it did not become clear until\n2004 that § 1.2104(g) does not apply to its default, it was\nhelped—not hurt—by that clarification.\n\n Second, even assuming GLH were correct about the\nquestion under consideration in the 1997 Order, the\nCommission had made sufficiently clear, at least by the time of\nGLH’s assumption of the installment-payment obligations, that\n§ 1.2104(g) did not apply to installment payers who defaulted\nafter the award of a license. The 1997 Order engaged in a\ndetailed discussion of the Commission’s rationale for finding\nthat § 1.2104(g) does not apply to installment payers. Although\nGLH identifies some seemingly contradictory language in a\nlater portion of the Order, no reasonable licensee reading the\nOrder as a whole would have concluded that § 1.2104(g)\napplies to installment payers. And one of the contradictory\nstatements was removed in an erratum issued the following\nyear, which would have reinforced the recognition that the\nCommission believed § 1.2104(g) does not apply to installment\npayers and that those contradictory statements were simply an\nerror. The 2000 and 2004 Orders merely clarified, rather than\nchanged, the Commission’s position. As a result, the\nCommission’s refusal to grant GLH a set-off of its debt with\nthe reauction proceeds did not involve any impermissible\n\f 18\nretroactive change in the Commission’s interpretation of\n§ 1.2104(g).\n\n 3.\n\n Finally, GLH argues that because the proceeds of the\nspectrum reauction exceeded the amount of GLH’s outstanding\ndebt, the Commission has been made whole and GLH is\nentitled to a forgiveness of its debt. GLH’s argument stems\nfrom an opinion letter released by the Commission responding\nto concerns about the note and security agreement that the\nCommission required installment payers to execute. See\nLeonard J. Kennedy, Esq., & Richard S. Denning, Esq., 11\nFCC Rcd. 21,572. One of those concerns was that, in the event\nof a default, the Commission could both reauction the spectrum\nand collect on the note, resulting in a double recovery. Id. at\n21,576. According to the Commission, that concern was\nmisplaced because “the equity principles established” in the\nDebt Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. ch. 37, and Federal Claims\nCollection Standards, 31 C.F.R. ch. IX, “should allow the\nfederal government to forgive any outstanding debt so long as\nit has been made whole (penalties and costs included) in a\nsubsequent auction.” Leonard J. Kennedy, Esq., & Richard S.\nDenning, Esq., 11 FCC Rcd. at 21,576. Therefore, GLH\nargues, because the Commission has been made whole through\nthe reauctions in this case, it must forgive GLH’s outstanding\ndebt.\n\n Although GLH is correct that, based on the opinion letter,\nthe Commission may agree that GLH’s debt should be forgiven\nif the Commission has been made whole, GLH has raised its\nargument in the wrong proceeding. The Debt Collection Act\nand Federal Claims Collection Standards provide a mechanism\nfor (and a set of standards governing) debt compromise\nrequests, and place the ultimate authority to compromise debts\n\f 19\nas large as GLH’s in the Department of Justice rather than in\nthe Commission. See 31 C.F.R. § 902.1(b). GLH thus can raise\nits debt-forgiveness argument in a petition for debt compromise\nthat it can submit to the Commission, see 47 C.F.R. § 1.1915,\nor as a defense in any future debt-collection action (the\nCommission has not initiated any collection action), rather than\nas a subsidiary argument in this license-cancellation\nproceeding. (And, if GLH’s argument persuades the\nCommission that a compromise is appropriate, the\nCommission can seek compromise approval from the\nDepartment of Justice.)\n\n That understanding is confirmed both by the 2004 Order,\nsee 2004 Order, 19 FCC Rcd. at 2558 (explaining that the\nopinion letter “makes clear that any forgiveness of a debt\narising from an installment payment default would occur only\nin the course of federal debt collection proceedings”), and also\nby Commission counsel in oral argument, see Oral Argument\n23:16–27:43. We thus affirm the Commission’s decision not\nto consider the argument or forgive GLH’s debt in this\nproceeding, understanding that GLH may initiate consideration\nof its equitable argument for debt forgiveness by filing a\npetition for debt compromise.\n\n * * * * *\n\n For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the\nFederal Communications Commission.\n\n So ordered.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: GLH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Appellant v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-16\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued January 9, 2019 Decided July 16, 2019\\n\\n No. 18-1176\\n\\n GLH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,\\n APPELLANT\\n\\n v.\\n\\n FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,\\n APPELLEE\\n\\n\\n On Appeal of Orders of the Federal Communications\\n Commission\\n\\n\\n Donald J. Evans argued the cause for appellant. With him\\non the briefs was Keenan P. Adamchak.\\n\\n David M. Gossett, Deputy General Counsel, Federal\\nCommunications Commission, argued the cause for appellee.\\nWith him on the brief were Thomas M. Johnson Jr., General\\nCounsel, Jacob M. Lewis, Associate General Counsel, and\\nPamela L. Smith, Counsel. Richard K. Welch, Deputy\\nAssociate General Counsel, entered an appearance.\\n\\n Before: ROGERS, SRINIVASAN, and PILLARD, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SRINIVASAN.\\n\\f 2\\n SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judge: In 2001, GLH\\nCommunications, Inc., a cellular telephone company, acquired\\na number of radio spectrum licenses from Leap Wireless\\nInternational, another cellular telephone company. Leap had\\noriginally purchased a handful of those licenses from the\\nFederal Communications Commission under an installment\\npayment program. When GLH acquired the licenses, it\\nassumed the obligation to make the installment payments.\\nGLH, though, failed to make the payments for some of the\\nlicenses, prompting the Commission to cancel those licenses\\nand reauction the underlying spectrum to new providers.\\n\\n In administrative proceedings before the Commission,\\nGLH challenged both the Commission’s decision to cancel the\\nlicenses and its refusal to give GLH a credit against its debt for\\nthe proceeds of the reauction. The Commission rejected\\nGLH’s arguments, and GLH now appeals. We conclude that\\nthe Commission acted appropriately in cancelling GLH’s\\nlicenses for failure to make the installment payments and in\\nrefusing to apply the reauction proceeds against GLH’s debt.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n The Federal Communications Commission has exclusive\\nauthority to grant licenses to use radio spectrum, and must, as\\na general matter, employ an auction system to assign licenses.\\nSee 47 U.S.C. §§ 307(a), 309(j). Congress identified various\\npurposes that the Commission must seek to promote when\\ndesigning an auction system. See id. § 309(j)(3). One of those\\npurposes is ensuring that licenses are disseminated “among a\\nwide variety of applicants, including small businesses.” Id.\\n§ 309(j)(3)(B).\\n\\n To that end, the Commission developed an installment\\nplan program, under which qualifying small businesses can pay\\n\\f 3\\nwinning auction bids in installment payments made over the\\nterm of the license. Such a program, the Commission reasoned,\\nwould enhance the ability of small businesses to participate in\\nspectrum auctions by reducing the up-front costs of a license.\\nThe structure, however, comes with a condition: any licenses\\nwon with an installment bid “shall be conditioned upon the full\\nand timely performance of the licensee’s payment obligations\\nunder the installment plan.” 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4). If an\\ninstallment-payment licensee misses a payment (and does not\\nmake up the payment within two quarter-long grace periods),\\nthe licensee “shall be in default, its license shall automatically\\ncancel, and it will be subject to debt collection procedures.” Id.\\n§ 1.2110(g)(4)(iv).\\n\\n In 1996, the Commission auctioned off a number of\\nlicenses covering radio spectrum to be used for cellular\\ntelephone service. Two of the winning bidders in that auction\\nwere (i) NTCH, the parent company of GLH at the time, and\\n(ii) a subsidiary of Leap Wireless International.\\n\\n Three years later, NTCH and Leap agreed to trade some of\\nthe licenses each had won in the auction. Although the NTCH\\nlicenses included in the deal had been fully paid at the time of\\nthe auction, six of the Leap licenses had been purchased using\\nthe installment program. In order to secure Commission\\napproval of the assignment of those licenses, GLH assumed\\nboth the security agreements executed by the Leap subsidiary\\nwhen it won the licenses and also the obligation to make all\\nremaining installment payments. At the same time, Leap\\nagreed to pay GLH the funds necessary to make the installment\\npayments each quarter.\\n\\n The arrangement evidently worked without complication\\nfor a couple of years. But in January 2003, Leap failed to make\\nits payment to GLH, and GLH then failed to make the next\\n\\f 4\\ninstallment payment to the Commission, due on January 31,\\n2003. Under the Commission’s two-grace-period rule, GLH\\nhad until July 31, 2003 to cure the payment delinquency. But\\ninstead of curing the delinquency, GLH filed a waiver request,\\nin which it explained the circumstances of the missed payment\\nand asked the Commission for a two-year waiver of its debt\\ncollection rules and payment deadlines to “allow GLH\\nadditional time to try to satisfy its obligations.” Request of\\nGLH Communications, Inc. for Temporary Waivers of\\nInstallment Payment Deadlines (47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)) and\\nDebt Collection Rules (47 C.F.R. § 1.1901 et seq.), at 6 (Apr.\\n16, 2003), J.A. 42.\\n\\n On July 18—approximately two weeks before the end of\\nGLH’s grace period—the Commission’s Auctions and\\nIndustry Analysis Division released an order denying GLH’s\\nrequest for a waiver of the payment deadlines. See In re\\nRequest of GLH Commc’ns, Inc. for Temporary Waivers of\\nInstallment Payment Deadlines, 18 FCC Rcd. 14,695 (2003),\\nJ.A. 76. The Division explained that “strict enforcement of the\\ninstallment payment rules enhances the integrity of the auction\\nand licensing process,” and determined that GLH had not\\nshown any unique circumstances rendering enforcement of the\\ndeadline inequitable. Id. ¶ 11; see id. ¶¶ 7–18.\\n\\n When the deadline arrived, GLH had paid its outstanding\\nobligations on only two of the six licenses. The remaining four\\nlicenses automatically cancelled under the governing\\nregulation. 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4). After the cancellation,\\nGLH filed a petition for reconsideration of the Division’s Order\\ndenying a waiver. In addition to the arguments made in its\\nwaiver request, GLH contended that the Commission had been\\nrequired by a statute, 47 U.S.C. § 312(c), to provide a hearing\\nbefore cancelling the licenses, and further argued that, if the\\n\\f 5\\nCommission decided to proceed with cancellation, it should\\nreturn the payments GLH had previously made.\\n\\n While GLH’s rehearing petition was pending, the\\nCommission reauctioned the spectrum covered by GLH’s\\ncancelled licenses to new buyers. The Commission’s Wireless\\nTelecommunications Bureau then released an order denying\\nthe petition for rehearing. See In re GLH Commc’ns, Inc., 22\\nFCC Rcd. 2411 (2007), J.A. 104. With respect to GLH’s\\nwaiver request, the Bureau’s Order largely repeated the\\nreasoning of the Division. See id. ¶¶ 12–22. With respect to\\nGLH’s new arguments, the Bureau determined that § 312(c)’s\\nhearing requirement does not apply to automatic cancellations\\nfor defaults under 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)(iv) and that GLH\\nwas not entitled to any refund of its previous payments. Id.\\n¶¶ 23–25.\\n\\n GLH then filed an application for review with the full\\nCommission, in which it repeated the arguments it had\\npreviously made before the Division and the Bureau. Because\\nthe spectrum had since been reauctioned, GLH also argued that\\nit was entitled to remission of any reauction proceeds\\nexceeding GLH’s debt.\\n\\n The Commission denied GLH’s application for review. In\\nre Alpine PCS, Inc., 255 FCC Rcd. 469 (2010), J.A. 163. It\\nlargely repeated the reasoning contained in the previous orders\\nand additionally concluded that GLH was not entitled to have\\nthe reauction proceeds set off against its debt. Id. ¶¶ 18–38,\\n47–50, 58–66, 83–85. GLH unsuccessfully sought rehearing\\nbefore the Commission, see In re GLH Commc’ns, Inc., 33\\nFCC Rcd. 5926 (2018), J.A. 220, and then brought this appeal.\\n\\f 6\\n II.\\n\\n GLH raises two groups of challenges to the Commission’s\\ndecision. It initially argues that the Commission erred in\\ncancelling its licenses, both because the decision to reject its\\nwaiver request was arbitrary and capricious and because it was\\nentitled to a pre-cancellation hearing. Then, GLH argues that\\neven if the Commission validly cancelled its licenses, the\\nCommission should have granted it a credit for the reauction\\nproceeds or forgiven its debt.\\n\\n “We review the FCC’s decision only to determine whether\\nit was ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or\\notherwise not in accordance with law.’ Our review is ‘very\\ndeferential.’” Press Commc’ns LLC v. FCC, 875 F.3d 1117,\\n1121 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (first quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); then\\nquoting Rural Cellular Ass’n v. FCC, 588 F.3d 1095, 1105\\n(D.C. Cir. 2009)) (citation omitted). A Commission decision\\nis arbitrary and capricious if the Commission “has relied on\\nfactors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely\\nfailed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered\\nan explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence\\nbefore the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be\\nascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency\\nexpertise.” Id. (quoting Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n v. State\\nFarm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)).\\n\\n A.\\n\\n We first address GLH’s arguments that the Commission\\nerred in denying GLH’s waiver request and failing to provide\\nit a hearing before cancelling its licenses.\\n\\f 7\\n 1.\\n\\n GLH contends that the Commission’s denial of its request\\nfor a waiver of the installment-payment deadline was arbitrary\\nand capricious. The Commission’s regulations allow it to grant\\na request to waive the installment payment rules if a licensee\\nshows either (i) that “[t]he underlying purpose of the rule(s)\\nwould not be served or would be frustrated by application to\\nthe instant case, and that a grant of the requested waiver would\\nbe in the public interest,” or (ii) that “[i]n view of unique or\\nunusual factual circumstances of the instant case, application\\nof the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly burdensome or\\ncontrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no\\nreasonable alternative.” 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3).\\n\\n In rejecting GLH’s waiver request, the Commission\\nexplained that the auction system is designed to award each\\nlicense “to the party that placed the highest value on the\\nspectrum.” In re Alpine PCS, Inc., 255 FCC Rcd. 469, at\\n¶¶ 20–21. But “allow[ing] licensees to keep their licenses after\\nthey had failed to comply with the Commission’s payment\\nrules” would interfere with that goal by “increas[ing] the\\nincentive for bidders to make bids they could not pay and\\nreduc[ing] opportunities for other bidders to win licenses.” Id.\\n¶ 21. As a result, the Commission explained, “strict\\nenforcement of the installment payment rules preserves a fair\\nand efficient licensing process and promotes the rapid\\ndeployment of services for the benefit of the public,” and the\\nrationale for strict enforcement applies “whether the licensee\\nacquired the license directly through competitive bidding or\\nthrough assignment in the secondary market.” Id. The\\nCommission thus had previously granted a waiver request\\n“only after finding that there was no serious question regarding\\nthe defaulting licensee’s ongoing ability and willingness to\\nfulfill its payment obligations despite the default and, therefore,\\n\\f 8\\nno question regarding the presumption that it remained best\\nsuited to utilize the spectrum.” Id. ¶ 22.\\n\\n Applying that approach to GLH’s waiver request, the\\nCommission determined that GLH had not demonstrated an\\n“ongoing financial ability and willingness to fulfill [its]\\npayment obligations post-default.” Id. ¶ 29. The Commission\\nconcluded that granting GLH’s request therefore would serve\\nneither the purposes of the automatic-cancellation rule nor the\\npublic interest. See id. ¶ 31. Additionally, the Commission\\nfound that GLH had not demonstrated any “unique factual\\ncircumstances” entitling it to a waiver. Id. ¶ 32. The\\nCommission explained that “claims regarding financial\\ndifficulties resulting from a licensee’s business decisions and\\ncommercial dealings, including those in which a third party has\\nwithdrawn its financial support, do not amount to unique facts\\nor circumstances that make application of the automatic\\ncancellation rule inequitable, burdensome, or contrary to the\\npublic interest,” because the Commission “cannot take into\\naccount the private business arrangements that an applicant has\\nmade to finance its successful auction bid.” Id. (citation and\\nalteration omitted).\\n\\n The Commission’s explanation of its decision, at least on\\nits face, is more than adequate to survive\\narbitrary-and-capricious review. The Commission\\nappropriately explained the legal standard, examined the\\nparticular facts of GLH’s case, and reasonably applied that\\nstandard to those facts. GLH advances three arguments as to\\nwhy the Commission’s decision nonetheless is arbitrary and\\ncapricious, none of which we find persuasive.\\n\\n First, GLH contends that the public interest favored\\ngranting its waiver request because it had already built the\\nnecessary infrastructure and begun providing cellular service\\n\\f 9\\nbefore its default. Although avoiding a discontinuation of\\nongoing service weighed in GLH’s favor, the Commission\\nconsidered that factor and determined that the “broader public\\ninterest in preserving the integrity and efficiency of the\\nCommission’s auction process, as well as the Commission’s\\nobligation to fairly and consistently enforce its installment\\npayment rules,” outweighed the public “interest in a particular\\nlicensee’s provision of service.” Id. ¶ 37. That determination\\nwas reasonable and fell squarely within the Commission’s\\ntechnical competence.\\n\\n Second, GLH asserts that the Commission’s desire to\\npreserve the integrity of the auction process should not have\\ncarried the day because GLH acquired its licenses by\\nassignment rather than in an auction. That argument, too, was\\nconsidered and rejected by the Commission. See id. ¶ 21 &\\nn.111 (citing In re GLH Commc’ns, Inc., 22 FCC Rcd. 2411, at\\n¶ 15). As the underlying Bureau Order explained, a winning\\nbidder “demonstrat[es] the integrity of its valuation by paying\\nthe amount of the winning bids,” and that demonstration\\ncontinues past assignment when an assignee “assume[s] the\\nwinning bidder’s obligation to fully and timely pay the amount\\nof the winning bids.” In re GLH Commc’ns, Inc., 22 FCC Rcd.\\n2411, at ¶ 15. Allowing an original purchaser who is unable to\\nmeet its obligations simply to assign the license with the\\nunderstanding that the Commission will treat the assignee more\\nleniently could compromise the Commission’s ability to ensure\\nthe integrity of the underlying valuation. The Commission thus\\nreasonably concluded that an assignee’s timely payment “is\\nimportant to the integrity of the auctions program.” In re\\nAlpine PCS, Inc., 255 FCC Rcd. 469, at ¶ 21 n.111.\\n\\n Third, GLH argues that the Commission’s rejection of its\\nwaiver request was inconsistent with the Commission’s 1997\\ndecision to provide a suite of debt-relief options to distressed\\n\\f 10\\ninstallment payers. See In re Amendment of the Comm’n’s\\nRules Regarding Installment Payment Fin. for Personal\\nCommc’ns Servs. (PCS) Licenses, Second Report and Order\\nand Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd.\\n16,436 (1997). We are unable to consider that argument\\nbecause GLH did not appropriately raise it before the\\nCommission. See 47 U.S.C. § 405(a). GLH advanced the\\nargument only in a single oblique reference in its petition for\\nreconsideration before the Bureau. See GLH Pet. for Recons.\\n2 & n.3, J.A. 90. That single reference, however, was\\ninsufficient to provide the Commission “a fair opportunity to\\npass on” GLH’s argument, Time Warner Ent’mt Co. v. FCC,\\n144 F.3d 75, 79 (D.C. Cir. 1998), both because it was only a\\npassing reference and also because GLH failed to renew the\\nargument in its application for review before the Commission\\nitself, see Coal. for Noncommercial Media v. FCC, 249 F.3d\\n1005, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2001).\\n\\n For those reasons, we conclude that the Commission’s\\ndenial of GLH’s waiver request was not arbitrary or capricious.\\n\\n 2.\\n\\n GLH also contends that 47 U.S.C. § 312(c) required the\\nCommission to hold a hearing before cancelling GLH’s\\nlicenses. That provision requires the Commission to hold a\\nhearing “[b]efore revoking a license . . . pursuant to subsection\\n(a).” 47 U.S.C. § 312(c). Subsection (a), in turn, grants the\\nCommission authority to revoke a station license for seven\\nspecific reasons, such as “false statements knowingly made . . .\\nin the application,” “willful or repeated failure to operate\\nsubstantially as set forth in the license,” and “willful or\\nrepeated violation of, or willful or repeated failure to observe[,]\\nany provision of this chapter or any rule or regulation of the”\\nCommission. Id. § 312(a).\\n\\f 11\\n As the Commission concluded in its Order, see In re\\nAlpine PCS, Inc., 255 FCC Rcd. 469, at ¶¶ 84–85, GLH’s\\nlicenses were not revoked for any of the reasons enumerated in\\n§ 312(a). Instead, they were automatically cancelled under the\\napplicable regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)(iv), when GLH\\ndefaulted on its installment payments. See 47 C.F.R.\\n§ 1.2110(g)(4)(iv) (“If an eligible entity obligated to make\\ninstallment payments fails to pay the total Required Installment\\nPayment, interest and any late payment fees associated with the\\nRequired Installment Payment within two quarters (6 months)\\nof the Required Installment Payment due date, it shall be in\\ndefault, its license shall automatically cancel, and it will be\\nsubject to debt collection procedures.”). The terms of § 312(c)\\nthus do not afford GLH a right to a pre-cancellation hearing:\\n§ 312(c) provides a hearing right for revocations “pursuant to”\\n§ 312(a), and GLH’s licenses were not cancelled pursuant to\\n§ 312(a).\\n\\n GLH argues that, under that reading, the Commission\\ncould regulate its way around § 312(c) by simply repeating\\n§ 312(a)’s statutory grounds for revocation in a regulation,\\nconditioning licenses on compliance with the regulation, and\\nthen cancelling licenses upon a failure to comply without\\naffording any hearing. GLH’s argument might have some\\nforce if the Commission had in fact parroted § 312(a) in\\nregulations and then relied on those regulations to cancel\\nGLH’s licenses. In such a situation, it might fairly be said that\\nthe licenses were cancelled “pursuant to” both § 312(a) and the\\nregulations. But that is not what happened here. Rather, the\\nunderlying reason for cancellation—that GLH defaulted on its\\ninstallment payments—does not appear in § 312(a) at all. The\\ncancellation of GLH’s licenses then cannot have taken place\\nunder § 312(a), and § 312(c) did not afford GLH a right to a\\npre-cancellation hearing.\\n\\f 12\\n B.\\n\\n In addition to arguing that the Commission erred in\\ncancelling GLH’s licenses, GLH also argues that, now that the\\nunderlying auction spectrum has been resold, it is entitled to\\ncompensation from the reauction or a forgiveness of its debt.\\n\\n 1.\\n\\n GLH first contends that the Uniform Commercial Code\\ngoverns its relationship with the Commission and that the UCC\\nentitles GLH to receive any reauction proceeds exceeding the\\namount of its debt to the Commission. With respect to that\\nargument, GLH and the Commission initially agree that, in the\\nabsence of any on-point statute, a commercial transaction\\nbetween the United States and a private party is governed by\\nfederal common law. See GLH Br. 39–40; FCC Br. 29 (citing\\nLeonard J. Kennedy, Esq., & Richard S. Denning, Esq., 11\\nFCC Rcd. 21,572, 21,577 (1996)); cf. United States v. Kimbell\\nFoods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 728–29 (1979); Clearfield Trust Co.\\nv. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 366–67 (1943). The content of\\nthat common law turns on a variety of factors, such as whether\\nthere is a need for a uniform federal standard or whether\\n“application of a federal rule would disrupt commercial\\nrelationships predicated on state law.” Kimbell Foods, 440\\nU.S. at 728–29. GLH argues, and the Commission has\\npreviously stated, that consideration of those factors should\\nlead a federal court to “apply the basic principles of Article 9\\nof the UCC” to secured transactions between the Commission\\nand licensees, modifying them “as necessary to produce a\\nuniform national result consistent with Congressional intent\\nand FCC policies set forth in the Communications Act and\\napplicable FCC rules and orders.” Leonard J. Kennedy, Esq.,\\n& Richard S. Denning, Esq., 11 FCC Rcd. at 21,578; see also\\nGLH Br. 39–40.\\n\\f 13\\n Assuming for the sake of argument that consideration of\\nthe appropriate factors would lead us to adopt the principles of\\nthe UCC to the extent they do not conflict with federal interests\\nor policies, we cannot accept GLH’s argument that the UCC\\ngoverns the Commission’s actions in this case. “Article 9 of\\nthe UCC sets forth a secured creditor’s lien-enforcement\\nremedies,” which means it would support GLH’s “claim of\\nentitlement to proceeds from the FCC’s sale of new licenses\\nonly if the FCC’s cancellation of the licenses was a lien-\\nenforcement remedy under the UCC.” In re Magnacom\\nWireless, LLC, 503 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2007). But unlike\\na private party, the Commission does not act only as a creditor,\\neven when dealing with installment payers owing it a debt.\\nInstead, the Commission also acts as a regulator. And while\\nthe Security Agreement assumed by GLH acknowledges that a\\ndefault will trigger automatic cancellation pursuant to 47\\nC.F.R. § 1.2110, see Security Agreement ¶ 8(a), J.A. 11, the\\nauthority to cancel the licenses comes not from the Security\\nAgreement but from the referenced regulation.\\n\\n Consequently, the Commission “had a regulatory . . . right\\nto cancel [GLH’s] licenses” when GLH defaulted, and that\\n“right was separate and independent from the FCC’s rights as\\na secured creditor.” Magnacom, 503 F.3d at 994; cf. Security\\nAgreement ¶ 2, J.A. 8 (acknowledging that the FCC’s security\\ninterest in the licenses is “not in derogation of any of the\\nCommission’s regulatory authority over the License[s]”).\\n“Because the FCC’s license cancellation is not a UCC lien-\\nenforcement remedy, the UCC’s requirements are simply\\ninapplicable” to the cancellation. Magnacom, 503 F.3d at 994.\\nAnd because GLH held an interest only in the licenses and not\\nin the underlying spectrum, see Security Agreement ¶ 2, J.A.\\n8; 47 U.S.C. § 301, once the licenses were cancelled pursuant\\nto the Commission’s regulatory authority, GLH had no claim\\n\\f 14\\nunder the UCC to the proceeds of the reauction of the\\nunderlying spectrum.\\n\\n 2.\\n\\n Next, GLH argues that the Commission’s refusal to offset\\nits debt with the proceeds of the auction constituted an\\nimpermissible retroactive reinterpretation of 47 C.F.R.\\n§ 1.2104(g)(2). That regulation establishes a specified penalty\\nfor high bidders who default or are disqualified “after the\\nclose” of a license auction. In GLH’s view, the penalty set\\nforth in that regulation should cap its exposure, such that it\\nshould effectively be entitled to a set-off (from the reauction\\nproceeds) of any additional exposure.\\n\\n GLH’s argument derives from the history of the\\nCommission’s interpretation of the regulation—concerning, in\\nparticular, the applicability of the regulation to installment\\npayers. Under the version of the regulation in effect in 1996, a\\nbidder who defaulted “after the close” of an auction was\\n“subject to a penalty equal to the difference between the\\namount bid and the amount of the winning bid the next time the\\nlicense is offered by the” Commission “plus an additional\\npenalty equal to 3 percent of the subsequent winning bid” or\\nthe defaulter’s bid (whichever was lower). GLH Br. SA-7\\n(quoting 47 C.F.R. § 1.2104(g) (1996)).\\n\\n In 1997, the Commission released an order explaining that,\\nwhen an installment payer defaults, its license “will be\\ncancelled automatically and the Commission will initiate debt\\ncollection procedures” pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110, but that\\n§ 1.2110 did “not clearly indicate . . . whether under these\\ncircumstances the licensee will be liable for the default\\npayment set forth in Section 1.2104(g).” In re Amendment of\\nPart I of the Comm’n’s Rules – Competitive Bidding\\n\\f 15\\nProcedures, 13 FCC Rcd. 374, 442 (1997) (1997 Order). In\\ndetermining that such defaulters should not be liable for the\\npayment described in § 1.2104(g), the Commission concluded\\nthat “an additional payment requirement for licensees\\ndefaulting on installments is not necessary” because the\\nCommission’s “current rules and installment payment terms\\nare adequate to discourage defaults,” and “the conditions on the\\nface of each license and the terms of the notes and security\\nagreements executed by licensees provide the Commission\\nappropriate remedies that will ensure that defaulted licenses are\\nreturned to the Commission for reauction and that all\\noutstanding debts, as well as the Commission’s costs, are\\nrecoverable.” Id. at 443.\\n\\n The Commission thereby explained in the 1997 Order that\\ninstallment payment defaulters would not be liable for the\\n§ 1.2104(g) penalty payment (and explained why the\\nCommission adopted that interpretation of § 1.2104(g)). But\\ntwo later statements in the Order appeared to suggest that\\ndefaulters in fact would be liable for the payments. First, the\\nOrder stated that, “by making licensees who default on an\\ninstallment payment subject to the default payment set forth in\\nSection 1.2104(g)(2), we create an additional deterrent to\\nlicensees considering default as a solution to financing\\nshortfalls.” Id. at 446. Second, the Order stated that, “upon\\ndefault on an installment payment, a license will automatically\\ncancel without further action by the Commission, the licensee\\nwill become subject to the default payment set forth in Section\\n1.2104(g) of our rules . . . , and the Commission will initiate\\ndebt collection procedures against the licensee.” Id. at 446–47.\\n\\n In an attempt to rectify any confusion created by the\\napparent contradictions in the Order, the Commission amended\\nthe Order the following year to remove the language in the\\nsecond sentence quoted above saying that “the licensee will\\n\\f 16\\nbecome subject to the default payment set forth in Section\\n1.2104(g) of our rules”; but the amendment erroneously failed\\nto remove the first sentence. See id. at Erratum ¶ 8. In two\\nsubsequent orders in 2000 and 2004, the Commission\\neliminated any remaining confusion about the applicability of\\nthe § 1.2014(g) penalty provision to installment-payment\\ndefaulters by reaffirming that the penalty provision does not in\\nfact apply to such defaulters. See In re Amendment of Part I of\\nthe Comm’n’s Rules – Competitive Bidding Procedures, 15\\nFCC Rcd. 15,293 (2000) (2000 Order); In re Amendment of\\nPart I of the Comm’n’s Rules – Competitive Bidding\\nProcedures, 19 FCC Rcd. 2551 (2004) (2004 Order).\\n\\n Under GLH’s view of that history, it did not become clear\\nuntil the 2004 Order (after GLH had defaulted) that\\n§ 1.2104(g)(2) does not apply to installment-payment debtors.\\nAnd under GLH’s reading, applying § 1.2104(g)(2) to GLH’s\\ndefault would effectively entitle it to a set-off of the reauction\\nproceeds against its debt. Refusing to grant it a set-off, GLH\\nargues, violates the principle against retroactivity embedded in\\nthe Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 551(4), by\\nimposing the higher penalties mandated by the 2004 Order\\n(rather than the lower penalties mandated by the 1997 Order)\\non its default.\\n\\n We are unpersuaded by GLH’s argument. First, GLH\\nmisunderstands the question considered by the Commission in\\nthe 1997 Order. GLH appears to believe that, if the\\nCommission had concluded that § 1.2104(g) applies to\\ninstallment payers, GLH then would have been entitled to the\\neffective set-off it reads into that provision. But in actuality,\\nthe Commission indicated at every step of the way that\\ninstallment payers were always subject to the cancellation and\\ndebt-collection penalties described in the separate regulation\\nspecifically addressing installment-payment defaults, 47\\n\\f 17\\nC.F.R. § 1.2110, including full liability for the purchase price\\nof the licenses. The only question the Commission considered\\nwith respect to installment payers and § 1.2104(g)(2) was\\nwhether defaulting payers would also be subject to the 3%\\npenalty and deficiency payment described in § 1.2104(g). E.g.,\\n1997 Order, 13 FCC Rcd. at 446 (“[B]y making licensees who\\ndefault on an installment payment subject to the default\\npayment set forth in Section 1.2104(g)(2), we create an\\nadditional deterrent to licensees considering default as a\\nsolution to financing shortfalls.” (emphasis added)). In short,\\neven if GLH were correct that it did not become clear until\\n2004 that § 1.2104(g) does not apply to its default, it was\\nhelped—not hurt—by that clarification.\\n\\n Second, even assuming GLH were correct about the\\nquestion under consideration in the 1997 Order, the\\nCommission had made sufficiently clear, at least by the time of\\nGLH’s assumption of the installment-payment obligations, that\\n§ 1.2104(g) did not apply to installment payers who defaulted\\nafter the award of a license. The 1997 Order engaged in a\\ndetailed discussion of the Commission’s rationale for finding\\nthat § 1.2104(g) does not apply to installment payers. Although\\nGLH identifies some seemingly contradictory language in a\\nlater portion of the Order, no reasonable licensee reading the\\nOrder as a whole would have concluded that § 1.2104(g)\\napplies to installment payers. And one of the contradictory\\nstatements was removed in an erratum issued the following\\nyear, which would have reinforced the recognition that the\\nCommission believed § 1.2104(g) does not apply to installment\\npayers and that those contradictory statements were simply an\\nerror. The 2000 and 2004 Orders merely clarified, rather than\\nchanged, the Commission’s position. As a result, the\\nCommission’s refusal to grant GLH a set-off of its debt with\\nthe reauction proceeds did not involve any impermissible\\n\\f 18\\nretroactive change in the Commission’s interpretation of\\n§ 1.2104(g).\\n\\n 3.\\n\\n Finally, GLH argues that because the proceeds of the\\nspectrum reauction exceeded the amount of GLH’s outstanding\\ndebt, the Commission has been made whole and GLH is\\nentitled to a forgiveness of its debt. GLH’s argument stems\\nfrom an opinion letter released by the Commission responding\\nto concerns about the note and security agreement that the\\nCommission required installment payers to execute. See\\nLeonard J. Kennedy, Esq., & Richard S. Denning, Esq., 11\\nFCC Rcd. 21,572. One of those concerns was that, in the event\\nof a default, the Commission could both reauction the spectrum\\nand collect on the note, resulting in a double recovery. Id. at\\n21,576. According to the Commission, that concern was\\nmisplaced because “the equity principles established” in the\\nDebt Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. ch. 37, and Federal Claims\\nCollection Standards, 31 C.F.R. ch. IX, “should allow the\\nfederal government to forgive any outstanding debt so long as\\nit has been made whole (penalties and costs included) in a\\nsubsequent auction.” Leonard J. Kennedy, Esq., & Richard S.\\nDenning, Esq., 11 FCC Rcd. at 21,576. Therefore, GLH\\nargues, because the Commission has been made whole through\\nthe reauctions in this case, it must forgive GLH’s outstanding\\ndebt.\\n\\n Although GLH is correct that, based on the opinion letter,\\nthe Commission may agree that GLH’s debt should be forgiven\\nif the Commission has been made whole, GLH has raised its\\nargument in the wrong proceeding. The Debt Collection Act\\nand Federal Claims Collection Standards provide a mechanism\\nfor (and a set of standards governing) debt compromise\\nrequests, and place the ultimate authority to compromise debts\\n\\f 19\\nas large as GLH’s in the Department of Justice rather than in\\nthe Commission. See 31 C.F.R. § 902.1(b). GLH thus can raise\\nits debt-forgiveness argument in a petition for debt compromise\\nthat it can submit to the Commission, see 47 C.F.R. § 1.1915,\\nor as a defense in any future debt-collection action (the\\nCommission has not initiated any collection action), rather than\\nas a subsidiary argument in this license-cancellation\\nproceeding. (And, if GLH’s argument persuades the\\nCommission that a compromise is appropriate, the\\nCommission can seek compromise approval from the\\nDepartment of Justice.)\\n\\n That understanding is confirmed both by the 2004 Order,\\nsee 2004 Order, 19 FCC Rcd. at 2558 (explaining that the\\nopinion letter “makes clear that any forgiveness of a debt\\narising from an installment payment default would occur only\\nin the course of federal debt collection proceedings”), and also\\nby Commission counsel in oral argument, see Oral Argument\\n23:16–27:43. We thus affirm the Commission’s decision not\\nto consider the argument or forgive GLH’s debt in this\\nproceeding, understanding that GLH may initiate consideration\\nof its equitable argument for debt forgiveness by filing a\\npetition for debt compromise.\\n\\n * * * * *\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the\\nFederal Communications Commission.\\n\\n So ordered.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3452,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4639816,"string":"4,639,816"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, Et Al., Appellees v. Donald J. TRUMP, in His Official Capacity as President of the United States, Et Al., Appellants"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"American Federation of Govt. v. Donald Trump"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-16"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-5289"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Griffith, Srinivasan, Randolph\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued April 4, 2019 Decided July 16, 2019\\n\\n No. 18-5289\\n\\n AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,\\n AFL-CIO, ET AL.,\\n APPELLEES\\n\\n v.\\n\\n DONALD J. TRUMP, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT\\n OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.,\\n APPELLANTS\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the District of Columbia\\n (No. 1:18-cv-01261)\\n\\n\\n Joseph F. Busa, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,\\nargued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were\\nHashim M. Mooppan, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and\\nMark B. Stern, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice. Sarah\\nCarroll, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, entered an\\nappearance.\\n\\n Andres M. Grajales and Gregory O’Duden argued the\\ncauses for appellees. With them on the joint brief were David\\nA. Borer, Matthew W. Milledge, Larry J. Adkins, Julie M.\\nWilson, Paras N. Shah, Allison C. Giles, Jessica Horne, Judith\\nE. Rivlin, Teague P. Paterson, Michael L. Artz, Jefferson D.\\n\\f 2\\nFriday, David Strom, and Suzanne Summerlin. Keith R. Bolek\\nand Richard J. Hirn entered appearances.\\n\\n Victoria L. Bor, Jonathan D. Newman, Harold C. Becker,\\nMatthew J. Ginsburg, Brian A. Powers, Micah Berul, and\\nAnthony Tucci were on the brief for amici curiae American\\nFederation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Unions, et al.\\nin support of appellees. James B. Coppess entered an\\nappearance.\\n\\n Mark Gisler and Jean-Marc Favreau were on the brief for\\namicus curiae Thomas Wolf, Governor of Pennsylvania, in\\nsupport of appellees. Michael J. Gan entered an appearance.\\n\\n Adina H. Rosenbaum and Adam R. Pulver were on the\\nbrief for amici curiae Representative Elijah Cummings, et al.\\nin support of appellees.\\n\\n Before: GRIFFITH and SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judges, and\\nRANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH.\\n\\n GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: In May 2018, the President\\nissued three executive orders regarding relations between the\\nfederal government and its employees. Unions representing\\nfederal employees brought suit in the district court challenging\\nvarious aspects of the orders. The district court concluded that\\ncertain provisions in the orders were unlawful and enjoined the\\nPresident’s subordinates in the executive branch from\\nimplementing them. We hold that the district court lacked\\njurisdiction and vacate its judgment.\\n\\n I\\n\\f 3\\n A\\n\\n In the 1960s, Presidents used executive orders to grant\\nfederal employees “limited rights to engage in concerted\\nactivity” through unions. ATF v. FLRA, 464 U.S. 89, 91-92\\n(1983); see Exec. Order No. 10,988, Employee-Management\\nCooperation in the Federal Service, 27 Fed. Reg. 551 (Jan. 17,\\n1962); Exec. Order No. 11,491, Labor-Management Relations\\nin the Federal Service, 34 Fed. Reg. 17,605 (Oct. 29, 1969). In\\n1978, Congress enacted the Federal Service Labor-\\nManagement Relations Statute (the “Statute” or FSLMRS) to\\ngovern labor relations between the executive branch and its\\nemployees. The Statute is set forth in Title VII of the Civil\\nService Reform Act (CSRA), Pub. L. No. 95-454, § 701, 92\\nStat. 1111, 1191-1216 (1978) (codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101-\\n35).\\n\\n The Statute grants federal employees the right to organize\\nand bargain collectively, and it requires that unions and federal\\nagencies negotiate in good faith over certain matters. See 5\\nU.S.C. §§ 7102(2), 7103(a)(14), 7106, 7114, 7117(a)(1); ATF,\\n464 U.S. at 91-92. But except as “expressly provided,” the\\nStatute does not limit “any function of, or authority available\\nto, the President which the President had immediately before\\n[its] effective date.” Pub. L. No. 95-454, § 904, 92 Stat. at 1224\\n(codified at 5 U.S.C. § 1101 note).\\n\\n The Statute also establishes a scheme of administrative\\nand judicial review. Administrative review is provided by the\\nFederal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), a three-member\\nagency charged with adjudicating federal labor disputes,\\nincluding “negotiability” disputes and “unfair labor practice”\\ndisputes. See 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a). In negotiability disputes, the\\nFLRA determines whether agencies and unions must bargain\\nover certain subjects. Id. §§ 7105(a)(2)(E), 7117(c)(1). In\\n\\f 4\\nunfair labor practice proceedings, the FLRA resolves whether\\nan agency must bargain over a subject, violated the duty to\\nbargain in good faith, or otherwise failed to comply with the\\nStatute. Id. §§ 7105(a)(2)(G), 7116(a), 7118. The FLRA’s\\ndecisions in such disputes are subject to direct review in the\\ncourts of appeals. Id. § 7123(a), (c).\\n\\n B\\n\\n In May 2018, the President issued three executive orders\\nregarding federal labor-management relations. Among other\\nrequirements, the “Collective Bargaining Order” provides\\nagencies with certain procedures that they should seek to\\ninstitute during negotiations with unions. See Exec. Order No.\\n13,836, Developing Efficient, Effective, and Cost-Reducing\\nApproaches to Federal Sector Collective Bargaining, 83 Fed.\\nReg. 25,329, 25,331-32 (May 25, 2018). This order also tells\\nagencies not to negotiate over “permissive” subjects, id. at\\n25,332, defined as those that are negotiable “at the election of\\nthe agency” under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(1).\\n\\n The “Official Time Order” instructs agencies to aim to\\nlimit the extent to which collective bargaining agreements\\nauthorize “official time,” meaning time spent by employees on\\nunion business during working hours. See Exec. Order No.\\n13,837, Ensuring Transparency, Accountability, and Efficiency\\nin Taxpayer-Funded Union Time Use, 83 Fed. Reg. 25,335,\\n25,336 (May 25, 2018). This order also establishes rules that\\nlimit whether “agency time and resources” may be used by\\nemployees on non-government business. Id. at 25,337\\n(capitalization omitted).\\n\\n The “Removal Procedures Order” tells agencies to seek to\\nexclude from grievance proceedings any dispute over a\\ndecision to remove an employee “for misconduct or\\n\\f 5\\nunacceptable performance.” Exec. Order No. 13,839,\\nPromoting Accountability and Streamlining Removal\\nProcedures Consistent With Merit System Principles, 83 Fed.\\nReg. 25,343, 25,344 (May 25, 2018). Subject to various\\nexceptions, this order also prohibits agencies from resolving\\ndisputes over employee ratings and incentive pay through\\ngrievance or arbitration proceedings, and it mandates that some\\nsubpar employees may have no more than thirty days to\\nimprove their performance before being reassigned, demoted,\\nor fired. Id. at 25,344-45.\\n\\n Although numerous, the various challenged provisions of\\nthe executive orders fall into three categories: provisions that\\n(1) direct agencies to refuse to bargain over “permissive”\\nsubjects based on 5 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(1); (2) establish\\ngovernment-wide rules for employee and agency conduct,\\nwhich may have the effect of removing mandatory subjects\\nfrom bargaining based on 5 U.S.C. § 7117(a)(1); and (3) set\\ngoals that agencies must pursue during bargaining. The\\nexecutive orders enforce these goals by directing agencies to\\n“commit the time and resources necessary” to achieve them\\nand by requiring agencies to notify the President through the\\nOffice of Personnel Management (OPM) if the goals are not\\nmet. 83 Fed. Reg. at 25,331-32, 25,336, 25,344. The orders also\\nrequire agencies “to fulfill their obligation to bargain in good\\nfaith” throughout their dealings with unions. Id. at 25,331,\\n25,336; see also id. at 25,344.\\n\\n C\\n\\n The American Federation of Government Employees\\n(AFGE) and sixteen other federal labor unions immediately\\nchallenged the executive orders in four separate suits against\\nthe President, OPM, and the Director of OPM. AFGE v. Trump,\\n318 F. Supp. 3d 370, 391 (D.D.C. 2018). The suits were\\n\\f 6\\nconsolidated before the district court in June 2018. Id. at 392.\\nAs explained by the district court, the unions asserted four\\ntypes of claims: (1) The executive orders are unlawful because\\nthe President has no authority “at all” to issue executive orders\\nin the field of federal labor relations; (2) The executive orders\\nviolate the Constitution, specifically the Take Care Clause and\\nthe First Amendment right to freedom of association; (3) The\\nexecutive orders and their various provisions violate particular\\nrequirements of the Statute; and (4) The executive orders’\\n“cumulative impact” violates the right to bargain collectively\\nas guaranteed by the Statute. Id. at 391-92.\\n\\n Some of the unions moved for preliminary injunctions, but\\nall parties ultimately agreed to the district court’s proposal that\\nthe dispute be resolved on cross-motions for summary\\njudgment, litigated on an expedited briefing schedule.\\n\\n The district court issued its decision in late August 2018.\\nThe court first held that it had subject matter jurisdiction,\\nrejecting the government’s argument that jurisdiction belonged\\nexclusively to the FLRA and (on direct review from the FLRA)\\nthe courts of appeals. Id. at 395-409. On the merits, the district\\ncourt ruled that the President has constitutional and statutory\\nauthority to issue executive orders in the field of federal labor\\nrelations generally, but nine provisions of these executive\\norders violated the Statute: Some did so by removing from the\\nbargaining table subjects that “must” or “may” be negotiable,\\nothers by preventing agencies from bargaining in good faith.\\nId. at 412-33. The court enjoined the President’s subordinates\\nwithin the executive branch from implementing these\\nprovisions. Id. at 440; Order at 2-3, AFGE v. Trump, No. 1:18-\\ncv-1261 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2018), Dkt. No. 57.*\\n\\n *\\n The district court also held that several provisions of the\\nexecutive orders were consistent with the Statute, AFGE, 318 F.\\n\\f 7\\n\\n The government appealed, arguing that the district court\\nlacked subject matter jurisdiction and erred in holding unlawful\\nthe various provisions of the executive orders. We have\\njurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review\\nthe district court’s subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Capitol\\nHill Grp. v. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLC, 569 F.3d\\n485, 489 (D.C. Cir. 2009).\\n\\n II\\n\\n We reverse because the district court lacked subject matter\\njurisdiction. The unions must pursue their claims through the\\nscheme established by the Statute, which provides for\\nadministrative review by the FLRA followed by judicial review\\nin the courts of appeals.\\n\\n A\\n\\n “Within constitutional bounds, Congress decides what\\ncases the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider.” Bowles\\nv. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 212 (2007). District courts have\\njurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution\\nand laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C § 1331, but Congress\\nmay preclude district court jurisdiction by establishing an\\nalternative statutory scheme for administrative and judicial\\nreview. To determine whether Congress has done so, we use\\nthe two-step framework set forth in Thunder Basin Coal Co. v.\\nReich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994). Under that framework, “Congress\\nintended that a litigant proceed exclusively through a statutory\\n\\nSupp. 3d at 437-39; rejected the Take Care Clause claim, id. at 439;\\nand did not address the First Amendment claim because the only\\nprovision of the executive orders challenged under the First\\nAmendment was held unlawful under the Statute, id. at 430 n.16. The\\nunions do not contest these decisions on appeal.\\n\\f 8\\nscheme . . . when (i) such intent is ‘fairly discernible in the\\nstatutory scheme,’ and (ii) the litigant’s claims are ‘of the type\\nCongress intended to be reviewed within [the] statutory\\nstructure.’” Jarkesy v. SEC, 803 F.3d 9, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2015)\\n(quoting Thunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 207, 212); see Free Enter.\\nFund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 489\\n(2010).\\n\\n Here, the district court concluded that the first step is\\nsatisfied. AFGE, 318 F. Supp. 3d at 396-97. The parties do not\\ndispute this conclusion on appeal, nor could they. “With the\\nFSLMRS, as with all of the CSRA: ‘Congress passed an\\nenormously complicated and subtle scheme to govern\\nemployee relations in the federal sector.’” AFGE v. Sec’y of the\\nAir Force, 716 F.3d 633, 636 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting\\nSteadman v. Governor, U.S. Soldiers’ & Airmen’s Home, 918\\nF.2d 963, 967 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). The scheme “provides the\\nexclusive procedures by which federal employees and their\\nbargaining representatives may assert federal labor-\\nmanagement relations claims.” Id. at 638; see AFGE v. Loy,\\n367 F.3d 932, 935 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Thus, we can fairly discern\\nthat Congress intended the statutory scheme to be exclusive\\nwith respect to claims within its scope.\\n\\n The parties’ dispute arises at the second step. There, the\\ndistrict court held that the unions’ claims are not “of the type”\\nCongress intended for review within the statutory scheme.\\nAFGE, 318 F. Supp. 3d at 397-409. We disagree.\\n\\n B\\n\\n Claims “will be found to fall outside of the scope of a\\nspecial statutory scheme in only limited circumstances, when\\n(1) a finding of preclusion might foreclose all meaningful\\njudicial review; (2) the claim[s] [are] wholly collateral to the\\n\\f 9\\nstatutory review provisions; and (3) the claims are beyond the\\nexpertise of the agency.” Arch Coal, Inc. v. Acosta, 888 F.3d\\n493, 500 (D.C. Cir. 2018); see Free Enter. Fund, 561 U.S. at\\n489; Thunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 212-13. These considerations\\ndo not form “three distinct inputs into a strict mathematical\\nformula.” Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 17. Rather, they serve as\\n“general guideposts useful for channeling the inquiry into\\nwhether the particular claims at issue fall outside an\\noverarching congressional design.” Id. In this case, all three\\nconsiderations demonstrate that the unions must pursue their\\nclaims through the statutory scheme and not before the district\\ncourt.\\n\\n 1\\n\\n First, “all meaningful judicial review” is not foreclosed by\\nrequiring the unions to proceed through the statutory scheme.\\nSee Arch Coal, 888 F.3d at 500. The unions argue that the\\nscheme does not provide for meaningful judicial review\\nbecause they are unable to obtain “pre-implementation” review\\nof the executive orders or immediate relief barring all agencies\\nfrom implementing the executive orders. This argument is\\nforeclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Thunder Basin\\nand our decision in AFGE v. Secretary of the Air Force, 716\\nF.3d 633 (D.C. Cir. 2013).\\n\\n In Thunder Basin, a mining company’s employees\\ndesignated two non-employees to serve as their representatives.\\n510 U.S. at 204. Believing this violated the National Labor\\nRelations Act (NLRA), the company refused to post their\\ncontact information. Id. This refusal would ordinarily have\\ndrawn a citation from the mine safety agency, but before that\\ncould occur, the company filed a pre-enforcement challenge in\\nthe district court, arguing that the designation of non-\\nemployees as union representatives violated the NLRA. Id. at\\n\\f 10\\n204-05, 213-14, 216. The Supreme Court held that the district\\ncourt’s jurisdiction was precluded by the statutory scheme,\\nwhich provided for review before the Mine Safety and Health\\nReview Commission followed by appeal to the circuit courts.\\nId. at 218. Critically, that review was held “meaningful” even\\nthough there was no way for the company to assert its pre-\\nenforcement challenge, whether before the Commission or the\\ndistrict court. Id. at 212-16. The company was required to wait\\nuntil the mine safety agency issued a citation and initiated\\nconcrete enforcement proceedings before the Commission. Id.\\nat 216. Only through those proceedings—not before the district\\ncourt—could the company challenge the designation of the\\nnon-employees as violating the NLRA. Id. Here, Thunder\\nBasin instructs that the unions are not necessarily entitled to\\nraise a pre-implementation challenge in the district court, and\\nthat Congress may require them to litigate their claims solely\\nthrough the statutory scheme, at least so long as they can\\neventually obtain review and relief.\\n\\n Air Force provides the same guidance, but more\\nemphatically and in the specific context of the Statute’s scheme\\nfor review. The case began with a regulation requiring certain\\ncivilian employees to wear Air Force uniforms. See AFGE v.\\nSec’y of the Air Force, 841 F. Supp. 2d 233, 235 (D.D.C. 2012).\\nAFGE and its local unions brought an Administrative\\nProcedure Act (APA) suit in the district court, challenging the\\nregulation as arbitrary and capricious, unlawful under various\\nprovisions of Titles 10 and 18 of the U.S. Code, and in excess\\nof the Secretary’s authority under Title 10. Id. We held that the\\ndistrict court lacked jurisdiction, explaining that the Statute\\n“provides the exclusive procedures by which federal\\nemployees and their bargaining representatives may assert\\nfederal labor-management relations claims,” and “‘federal\\nemployees may not circumvent’” the Statute “by seeking\\n\\f 11\\njudicial review outside [its] procedures.” Air Force, 716 F.3d\\nat 636, 638 (quoting Steadman, 918 F.2d at 967).\\n\\n This was so even though AFGE and its local unions could\\nnot obtain immediate review of their “pre-implementation”\\nclaims before the FLRA, nor could they obtain their preferred\\nform of relief. Instead, the statutory scheme provided the local\\nunions with more modest “administrative options” for\\nchallenging the uniform regulation, followed by judicial review\\nin the courts of appeals. Id. at 636-38. For example, a local\\nunion could attempt to bargain over the dress code, and if the\\nAir Force refused to bargain, the local union could raise a\\nnegotiability dispute with the FLRA. Id. at 637 (citing 5 U.S.C.\\n§ 7117(c)). A local union could also use a grievance\\nproceeding to adjudicate a claim that the dress code violated\\nTitle 10. Id. at 637-38 & n.4 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7121). Or a\\nunion could challenge the dress code by filing unfair labor\\npractice charges. Id. at 638 (citing 5 U.S.C. §§ 7116(a),\\n7118(a)). We acknowledged that the unions “may not prevail\\nusing one of these procedures or would prefer to challenge the\\nAir Force instructions by some other means,” such as an APA\\nsuit in district court, but “that does not mean their claims may\\nbe brought outside the [Statute’s] exclusive remedial scheme.”\\nId.\\n\\n In fact, we went even further, holding that the unions were\\nrequired to raise their challenges through the scheme even if\\nthat made it impossible to obtain particular forms of review or\\nrelief. The Statute “can preclude a claim from being brought in\\na district court even if it forecloses the claim from\\nadministrative review” and provides no other way to bring the\\nclaim. Id. (emphasis added). For example, AFGE did not wish\\nto challenge the uniform regulation on a concrete “local-by-\\nlocal” basis through the FLRA but rather sought to do so on a\\n“nationwide” basis in an APA suit before the district court. Id.\\n\\f 12\\nat 639. The statutory scheme provided no way to assert such a\\n“nationwide” attack, but that did not mean AFGE could resort\\nto the courts. Id. at 638. Rather, it meant AFGE “may not raise\\nthe claim at all.” Id. Even plaintiffs with “nationwide” or\\n“systemwide” challenges may not “circumvent” the scheme\\nestablished by the Statute. Id. at 639 (internal quotation marks\\nomitted). We also acknowledged that even though the scheme\\nmight not afford the unions the same relief they sought in\\ndistrict court, the Statute still precluded the district court from\\nexercising jurisdiction: “[I]t is the comprehensiveness of the\\nstatutory scheme involved, not the adequacy of specific\\nremedies thereunder, that counsels judicial abstention.” Id. at\\n638 (internal quotation marks omitted).\\n\\n We need not determine the extent to which Air Force\\nwould allow a statutory scheme to foreclose review and relief.\\nThis case does not test Air Force’s outer bounds because the\\nunions here are not cut off from review and relief. Rather, they\\ncan ultimately obtain review of and relief from the executive\\norders by litigating their claims through the statutory scheme\\nin the context of concrete bargaining disputes.\\n\\n On the present record, it appears that the Statute provides\\nthe unions with several “administrative options” for\\nchallenging the executive orders before the FLRA, followed by\\njudicial review. See id. at 637. First, if an agency follows the\\nexecutive orders’ goal-setting provisions while bargaining with\\na union, the union could charge in an unfair labor practice\\nproceeding that the agency’s adherence to those provisions\\namounted to bad-faith bargaining in violation of the Statute.\\nThe FLRA could then determine whether the agency had done\\nso, and whether the agency may continue pursuing those goals\\nduring bargaining.\\n\\f 13\\n Also, if an agency refuses to bargain over various subjects\\nbased on the executive orders’ government-wide rules, the\\nunions could charge in a negotiability or unfair labor practice\\ndispute that the agency had refused to bargain over mandatory\\nmatters in violation of the Statute. In response, the government\\ncould argue (as it does here) that 5 U.S.C. § 7117(a)(1)\\nauthorizes it to remove subjects from bargaining in this way,\\nand the FLRA could then determine whether the government is\\ncorrect. See, e.g., Nat’l Fed’n of Fed. Emps. Local 15, 33\\nF.L.R.A. 436, 438-39 (1988); AFSCME Local 3097 Union, 31\\nF.L.R.A. 322, 345-47 (1988); cf. IRS v. FLRA, 996 F.2d 1246,\\n1252 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (reviewing the FLRA’s holding as to\\nwhether a government-wide rule displaced the duty to bargain\\nunder the Statute, indicating that the FLRA may hear such\\nclaims).\\n\\n The same sequence could occur if an agency refuses to\\nbargain over permissive subjects as directed by the executive\\norders. The union could charge the agency with violating the\\nStatute, and the government could respond (as it does here) by\\ninvoking 5 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(1), which states that certain\\nsubjects are negotiable “at the election of the agency.” The\\nFLRA could then determine whether the agency may refuse to\\nbargain in this way.\\n\\n These administrative options might enable the unions to\\nobtain from the FLRA much of the review and relief that they\\nsought from the district court. The unions worry that the FLRA\\ncannot address all of their claims, especially their broader\\nclaims: that the President acted ultra vires or violated the Take\\nCare Clause, the First Amendment, or the Statute in issuing the\\nexecutive orders. And the unions argue that the FLRA cannot\\nentertain suits against the President. Even if true, the latter\\npoint does not appear to make FLRA review any less\\nmeaningful than district court review in this case, where the\\n\\f 14\\nunions stated that injunctive relief against the President’s\\nsubordinates in executive branch agencies was sufficient to\\nafford them the relief they sought and the district court did not\\ngrant injunctive relief against the President. See Tr. of Mot.\\nHr’g at 133-34, AFGE v. Trump, No. 1:18-cv-1261 (D.D.C.\\nJuly 25, 2018), Dkt. No. 56; Order at 2-3, AFGE v. Trump, No.\\n1:18-cv-1261 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2018), Dkt. No. 57. Instead, the\\nunions obtained an order directing that the President’s\\nsubordinates may not implement various provisions of the\\nexecutive orders during bargaining. Order at 2-3, AFGE v.\\nTrump, No. 1:18-cv-1261 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2018), Dkt. No. 57.\\nOn this record, it appears that the unions may seek similar\\norders through the statutory scheme. Indeed, the government\\nhas even taken the position that the FLRA would have the\\nauthority to resolve the unions’ broad statutory claims,\\nspecifically those asserting that the executive orders are invalid\\nor ultra vires under the Statute. See Tr. of Oral Arg. at 42:16-\\n43:19 (April 4, 2019).\\n\\n But we need not map the precise contours of the FLRA’s\\nauthority to adjudicate the claims in this case. For even if the\\nFLRA could not address the claims, circuit courts could do so\\non appeal from the FLRA. The statutory scheme provides that\\nthe courts of appeals “shall have jurisdiction of the [FLRA]\\nproceeding and of the question determined therein” and “may\\nmake and enter a decree affirming and enforcing, modifying\\nand enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in whole or in\\npart the order of the [FLRA].” 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a), (c). Also,\\nthe courts of appeals generally may not consider objections that\\nwere not at least “urged” before the FLRA. Id. § 7123(c).\\nReviewing similar statutory schemes, the Supreme Court has\\nexplained that “[i]t is not unusual for an appellate court\\nreviewing the decision of an administrative agency to consider\\na constitutional challenge to a federal statute that the agency\\nconcluded it lacked authority to decide,” Elgin v. Dep’t of\\n\\f 15\\nTreasury, 567 U.S. 1, 18 n.8 (2012), and we recently elaborated\\nthat “it is of no dispositive significance” whether the agency\\n“has the authority to rule” on constitutional claims so long as\\nthe claims “can eventually reach ‘an Article III court fully\\ncompetent to adjudicate’ them,” Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 19\\n(quoting Elgin, 567 U.S. at 17); accord Bank of La. v. Fed.\\nDeposit Ins. Corp., 919 F.3d 916, 925-26 (5th Cir. 2019). We\\nsee no reason why the scheme here would prevent us from\\nresolving the unions’ constitutional or statutory challenges\\neven if the FLRA could not.\\n\\n The unions argue, and the district court concluded, that we\\nwould not be able to address such challenges because our\\njurisdiction is entirely “derivative” of the FLRA’s. Union Br.\\n16-18; AFGE, 318 F. Supp. 3d at 400. As the district court put\\nit, the Statute does not authorize us “to hear matters that are\\nbeyond the scope of the FLRA’s jurisdiction,” AFGE, 318 F.\\nSupp. 3d at 400, because it merely grants us jurisdiction over\\nthe FLRA “proceeding” and “the question determined therein”\\nand authorizes us to affirm, modify, or set aside only the\\nFLRA’s order, id. (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c)). We once\\nsuggested in a footnote that the Statute would not allow us to\\nreview constitutional claims that the FLRA could not consider.\\nNat’l Fed’n of Fed. Emps. v. Weinberger, 818 F.2d 935, 940\\nn.7 (D.C. Cir. 1987). But this suggestion cannot survive the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Thunder Basin, which involved a\\nstatutory scheme that used nearly identical language,\\nconferring on appellate courts jurisdiction over the Mine Safety\\nand Health Review Commission’s “proceeding” and “the\\nquestions determined therein,” with the authority to affirm,\\nmodify, or set aside the Commission’s order. 30 U.S.C.\\n§ 816(a)(1); see 510 U.S. at 208. The Supreme Court held that\\nthis scheme allowed the courts of appeals to “meaningfully\\naddress[]” statutory and constitutional claims even if the\\nCommission could not. Thunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 215.\\n\\f 16\\nLikewise, Sturm, Ruger & Co. v. Chao, 300 F.3d 867, 868\\n(D.C. Cir. 2002), involved a statute that used the same language\\nto empower us to review the orders of the Occupational Safety\\nand Health Review Commission, see 29 U.S.C. § 660(a). This\\nscheme, we explained, permitted us to meaningfully address\\nconstitutional claims on appeal from the Commission. Sturm,\\n300 F.3d at 874; see also Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 19\\n(nondelegation challenge must be channeled through the\\nSecurities and Exchange Commission, followed by review in\\nthis court, even if the Commission cannot resolve the\\nchallenge). The same language in the FSLMRS leads to the\\nsame conclusion: we may review the unions’ broad statutory\\nand constitutional claims on appeal from an FLRA proceeding\\neven if the FLRA cannot.\\n\\n This conclusion is confirmed by our decision in AFGE v.\\nLoy, 367 F.3d 932 (D.C. Cir. 2004). There, several unions\\nalleged in district court that an agency directive prohibiting\\nairport security screeners from engaging in collective\\nbargaining was “ultra vires” and violated the First and Fifth\\nAmendments of the Constitution. Id. at 934, 936. We held that\\nthe district court lacked jurisdiction and the unions were\\nrequired to pursue even their constitutional claims through the\\nFSLMRS’s scheme. Id. at 936-37. Our decision might have\\nbeen different, we acknowledged, if the scheme “preclude[d]\\nall judicial review of” the constitutional claims. Id. (quoting\\nThunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 215 n.20). But we found\\n“unwarranted” the “assumption” that the courts of appeals\\nwould not be able to review the claims on appeal from the\\nFLRA. Id. at 937. So too here. As we have explained, we see\\nno reason to think that the unions’ claims would be\\n“unreviewable” by an appellate court through the statutory\\nscheme. See id.; see also Steadman, 918 F.2d at 967 (“Congress\\npassed an enormously complicated and subtle scheme to\\ngovern employee relations in the federal sector,” and “federal\\n\\f 17\\nemployees may not circumvent that structure even if their\\nclaim is based as well on the Constitution.”).\\n\\n Requiring the unions here to proceed through the\\nFSLMRS’s scheme does not foreclose “all meaningful judicial\\nreview.” See Arch Coal, 888 F.3d at 500. Although the unions\\nare not able to pursue their preferred systemwide challenge\\nthrough the scheme, they can ultimately obtain review of and\\nrelief from the executive orders by litigating their claims in the\\ncontext of concrete bargaining disputes. Such review,\\naccording to Thunder Basin, Air Force, and Loy, qualifies as\\nmeaningful.\\n\\n 2\\n\\n For many of the same reasons, the unions’ claims are not\\n“wholly collateral” to the statutory scheme. See Arch Coal, 888\\nF.3d at 500. This consideration is “related” to whether\\n“meaningful judicial review” is available, and the two\\nconsiderations are sometimes analyzed together. Jarkesy, 803\\nF.3d at 22. In its most recent decision on this subject, the\\nSupreme Court determined whether the plaintiffs’ challenge\\nwas “wholly collateral” to a statutory scheme by asking\\nwhether the plaintiffs “aimed to obtain the same relief they\\ncould seek in the agency proceeding.” Id. at 23 (citing Elgin,\\n567 U.S. at 22). The Supreme Court concluded that they did,\\nbecause their challenge was of the type that was “regularly\\nadjudicated” through the statutory scheme and the statutory\\nscheme empowered the agency and the reviewing appellate\\ncourt to provide the relief sought by the plaintiffs. Elgin, 567\\nU.S. at 22.\\n\\n The unions’ challenge in this case is of the type that is\\nregularly adjudicated through the FSLMRS’s scheme: disputes\\nover whether the Statute has been violated. And the unions ask\\n\\f 18\\nthe district court for the same relief that they could ultimately\\nobtain through the statutory scheme, namely rulings on\\nwhether the executive orders are lawful and directives\\nprohibiting agencies from following the executive orders\\nduring bargaining disputes. Their challenge is not wholly\\ncollateral to the statutory scheme.\\n\\n 3\\n\\n Finally, the unions’ claims are not “beyond the expertise”\\nof the FLRA. See Arch Coal, 888 F.3d at 500. Many of their\\nclaims allege that the executive orders direct agencies to violate\\nthe Statute by refusing to bargain over mandatory subjects or\\nby taking actions that are inconsistent with the duty to bargain\\nin good faith. These matters lie at the core of the FLRA’s\\n“specialized expertise in the field of federal labor relations.”\\nAFGE Council of Locals No. 214 v. FLRA, 798 F.2d 1525,\\n1528 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The FLRA has “primary responsibility\\nfor administering and interpreting” the Statute, id.; see 5 U.S.C.\\n§ 7105(a), and it serves the “‘special function of applying the\\ngeneral provisions of the [Statute] to the complexities’ of\\nfederal labor relations,” Nat’l Fed’n of Fed. Emps. Local 1309\\nv. Dep’t of Interior, 526 U.S. 86, 99 (1999) (quoting ATF, 464\\nU.S. at 97). In doing so, the FLRA “regularly construes” the\\nStatute and adjudicates whether governmental actions violate\\nthe Statute. See Elgin, 567 U.S. at 23. Indeed, unlike Article III\\ncourts, the FLRA’s “ordinary course of business” involves\\ndetermining whether subjects are mandatory bargaining topics\\nor whether the government has bargained in good faith. See\\nJarkesy, 803 F.3d at 28. The FLRA’s familiarity with federal\\nlabor-management relations is thus more than “helpful\\nbackground knowledge.” AFGE, 318 F. Supp. 3d at 408. It is\\nexpertise that goes to the core issues in this case.\\n\\f 19\\n The district court concluded that this consideration\\nweighed in favor of exercising its jurisdiction because the\\nFLRA’s expertise was “potentially helpful” but “not essential\\nto resolving” the unions’ claims. Id. at 408-09 (capitalization\\nomitted). But that is not the law. The question we must ask is\\nwhether agency expertise may be “brought to bear on” the\\nclaims, not whether the expertise is essential. Jarkesy, 803 F.3d\\nat 29.\\n\\n The district court also viewed the unions’ claims as\\n“primarily” concerned with “separation-of-powers issues” and\\n“whether a statute or the Constitution has authorized the\\nPresident to act in a particular way”—issues that are the “bread\\nand butter of the Judicial Branch.” AFGE, 318 F. Supp. 3d at\\n408 (citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S.\\n579, 597 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring), and Marbury v.\\nMadison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803)). As already\\ndiscussed, many of the claims are not so grand, but rather\\nrequire interpreting the FSLMRS—the very law that the FLRA\\nis charged with administering and interpreting. Regardless, the\\nSupreme Court has “clarified” that “an agency’s relative level\\nof insight into the merits of a constitutional question is not\\ndeterminative.” Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 28-29 (citing Elgin, 567\\nU.S. at 22-23). Even in the absence of constitutional expertise,\\nan agency’s expertise in other areas may still weigh in favor of\\nadministrative review if the agency could “obviate the need to\\naddress” broad constitutional and statutory claims by resolving\\na case on other grounds or if the agency could “alleviate\\nconstitutional concerns” through its interpretation of its statute.\\nId. at 29 (quoting Elgin, 567 U.S. at 22-23); see Bank of La.,\\n919 F.3d at 929-30. That is the case here. The FLRA could\\n“moot the need to resolve” the unions’ constitutional claims by\\nconcluding that the Statute bars agencies from implementing\\nthe executive orders. See Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 29; cf. AFGE,\\n318 F. Supp. 3d at 430 n.16 (doing just that by declining to\\n\\f 20\\nresolve the First Amendment claim after concluding that the\\nprovision at issue ran afoul of the Statute). Also, the FLRA\\n“could offer an interpretation of the [Statute] in the course of\\nthe proceeding” that might alleviate or “shed light on” the\\nconstitutional concerns. See Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 29. After all,\\n“there are precious few cases involving interpretation of\\nstatutes authorizing agency action in which our review is not\\naided by the agency’s statutory construction.” Id. (quoting\\nMitchell v. Christopher, 996 F.2d 375, 379 (D.C. Cir. 1993)).\\nBecause the FLRA’s expertise can be “brought to bear” on the\\nunions’ claims in these ways, “we see no reason to conclude\\nthat Congress intended to exempt” the claims from the\\nstatutory scheme. Id. (quoting Elgin, 567 U.S. at 23).\\n\\n III\\n\\n All three considerations demonstrate that the unions’\\nclaims fall within the exclusive statutory scheme, which the\\nunions may not bypass by filing suit in the district court. See\\nArch Coal, 888 F.3d at 500. Lacking jurisdiction, the district\\ncourt had no power to address the merits of the executive\\norders. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83,\\n94-95 (1998); Kaplan v. Cent. Bank of the Islamic Republic of\\nIran, 896 F.3d 501, 510 (D.C. Cir. 2018). We therefore reverse\\nthe judgment of the district court holding that it had\\njurisdiction, and we vacate the district court’s judgment on the\\nmerits.\\n\\n So ordered.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4417069/\", \"author_raw\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"GRIFFITH"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SRINIVASAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"RANDOLPH"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4639816/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, Et Al., Appellees v. Donald J. TRUMP, in His Official Capacity as President of the United States, Et Al., Appellants\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-16\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued April 4, 2019 Decided July 16, 2019\n\n No. 18-5289\n\n AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,\n AFL-CIO, ET AL.,\n APPELLEES\n\n v.\n\n DONALD J. TRUMP, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT\n OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.,\n APPELLANTS\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the District of Columbia\n (No. 1:18-cv-01261)\n\n\n Joseph F. Busa, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,\nargued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were\nHashim M. Mooppan, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and\nMark B. Stern, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice. Sarah\nCarroll, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, entered an\nappearance.\n\n Andres M. Grajales and Gregory O’Duden argued the\ncauses for appellees. With them on the joint brief were David\nA. Borer, Matthew W. Milledge, Larry J. Adkins, Julie M.\nWilson, Paras N. Shah, Allison C. Giles, Jessica Horne, Judith\nE. Rivlin, Teague P. Paterson, Michael L. Artz, Jefferson D.\n\f 2\nFriday, David Strom, and Suzanne Summerlin. Keith R. Bolek\nand Richard J. Hirn entered appearances.\n\n Victoria L. Bor, Jonathan D. Newman, Harold C. Becker,\nMatthew J. Ginsburg, Brian A. Powers, Micah Berul, and\nAnthony Tucci were on the brief for amici curiae American\nFederation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Unions, et al.\nin support of appellees. James B. Coppess entered an\nappearance.\n\n Mark Gisler and Jean-Marc Favreau were on the brief for\namicus curiae Thomas Wolf, Governor of Pennsylvania, in\nsupport of appellees. Michael J. Gan entered an appearance.\n\n Adina H. Rosenbaum and Adam R. Pulver were on the\nbrief for amici curiae Representative Elijah Cummings, et al.\nin support of appellees.\n\n Before: GRIFFITH and SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judges, and\nRANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge.\n\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH.\n\n GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: In May 2018, the President\nissued three executive orders regarding relations between the\nfederal government and its employees. Unions representing\nfederal employees brought suit in the district court challenging\nvarious aspects of the orders. The district court concluded that\ncertain provisions in the orders were unlawful and enjoined the\nPresident’s subordinates in the executive branch from\nimplementing them. We hold that the district court lacked\njurisdiction and vacate its judgment.\n\n I\n\f 3\n A\n\n In the 1960s, Presidents used executive orders to grant\nfederal employees “limited rights to engage in concerted\nactivity” through unions. ATF v. FLRA, 464 U.S. 89, 91-92\n(1983); see Exec. Order No. 10,988, Employee-Management\nCooperation in the Federal Service, 27 Fed. Reg. 551 (Jan. 17,\n1962); Exec. Order No. 11,491, Labor-Management Relations\nin the Federal Service, 34 Fed. Reg. 17,605 (Oct. 29, 1969). In\n1978, Congress enacted the Federal Service Labor-\nManagement Relations Statute (the “Statute” or FSLMRS) to\ngovern labor relations between the executive branch and its\nemployees. The Statute is set forth in Title VII of the Civil\nService Reform Act (CSRA), Pub. L. No. 95-454, § 701, 92\nStat. 1111, 1191-1216 (1978) (codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101-\n35).\n\n The Statute grants federal employees the right to organize\nand bargain collectively, and it requires that unions and federal\nagencies negotiate in good faith over certain matters. See 5\nU.S.C. §§ 7102(2), 7103(a)(14), 7106, 7114, 7117(a)(1); ATF,\n464 U.S. at 91-92. But except as “expressly provided,” the\nStatute does not limit “any function of, or authority available\nto, the President which the President had immediately before\n[its] effective date.” Pub. L. No. 95-454, § 904, 92 Stat. at 1224\n(codified at 5 U.S.C. § 1101 note).\n\n The Statute also establishes a scheme of administrative\nand judicial review. Administrative review is provided by the\nFederal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), a three-member\nagency charged with adjudicating federal labor disputes,\nincluding “negotiability” disputes and “unfair labor practice”\ndisputes. See 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a). In negotiability disputes, the\nFLRA determines whether agencies and unions must bargain\nover certain subjects. Id. §§ 7105(a)(2)(E), 7117(c)(1). In\n\f 4\nunfair labor practice proceedings, the FLRA resolves whether\nan agency must bargain over a subject, violated the duty to\nbargain in good faith, or otherwise failed to comply with the\nStatute. Id. §§ 7105(a)(2)(G), 7116(a), 7118. The FLRA’s\ndecisions in such disputes are subject to direct review in the\ncourts of appeals. Id. § 7123(a), (c).\n\n B\n\n In May 2018, the President issued three executive orders\nregarding federal labor-management relations. Among other\nrequirements, the “Collective Bargaining Order” provides\nagencies with certain procedures that they should seek to\ninstitute during negotiations with unions. See Exec. Order No.\n13,836, Developing Efficient, Effective, and Cost-Reducing\nApproaches to Federal Sector Collective Bargaining, 83 Fed.\nReg. 25,329, 25,331-32 (May 25, 2018). This order also tells\nagencies not to negotiate over “permissive” subjects, id. at\n25,332, defined as those that are negotiable “at the election of\nthe agency” under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(1).\n\n The “Official Time Order” instructs agencies to aim to\nlimit the extent to which collective bargaining agreements\nauthorize “official time,” meaning time spent by employees on\nunion business during working hours. See Exec. Order No.\n13,837, Ensuring Transparency, Accountability, and Efficiency\nin Taxpayer-Funded Union Time Use, 83 Fed. Reg. 25,335,\n25,336 (May 25, 2018). This order also establishes rules that\nlimit whether “agency time and resources” may be used by\nemployees on non-government business. Id. at 25,337\n(capitalization omitted).\n\n The “Removal Procedures Order” tells agencies to seek to\nexclude from grievance proceedings any dispute over a\ndecision to remove an employee “for misconduct or\n\f 5\nunacceptable performance.” Exec. Order No. 13,839,\nPromoting Accountability and Streamlining Removal\nProcedures Consistent With Merit System Principles, 83 Fed.\nReg. 25,343, 25,344 (May 25, 2018). Subject to various\nexceptions, this order also prohibits agencies from resolving\ndisputes over employee ratings and incentive pay through\ngrievance or arbitration proceedings, and it mandates that some\nsubpar employees may have no more than thirty days to\nimprove their performance before being reassigned, demoted,\nor fired. Id. at 25,344-45.\n\n Although numerous, the various challenged provisions of\nthe executive orders fall into three categories: provisions that\n(1) direct agencies to refuse to bargain over “permissive”\nsubjects based on 5 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(1); (2) establish\ngovernment-wide rules for employee and agency conduct,\nwhich may have the effect of removing mandatory subjects\nfrom bargaining based on 5 U.S.C. § 7117(a)(1); and (3) set\ngoals that agencies must pursue during bargaining. The\nexecutive orders enforce these goals by directing agencies to\n“commit the time and resources necessary” to achieve them\nand by requiring agencies to notify the President through the\nOffice of Personnel Management (OPM) if the goals are not\nmet. 83 Fed. Reg. at 25,331-32, 25,336, 25,344. The orders also\nrequire agencies “to fulfill their obligation to bargain in good\nfaith” throughout their dealings with unions. Id. at 25,331,\n25,336; see also id. at 25,344.\n\n C\n\n The American Federation of Government Employees\n(AFGE) and sixteen other federal labor unions immediately\nchallenged the executive orders in four separate suits against\nthe President, OPM, and the Director of OPM. AFGE v. Trump,\n318 F. Supp. 3d 370, 391 (D.D.C. 2018). The suits were\n\f 6\nconsolidated before the district court in June 2018. Id. at 392.\nAs explained by the district court, the unions asserted four\ntypes of claims: (1) The executive orders are unlawful because\nthe President has no authority “at all” to issue executive orders\nin the field of federal labor relations; (2) The executive orders\nviolate the Constitution, specifically the Take Care Clause and\nthe First Amendment right to freedom of association; (3) The\nexecutive orders and their various provisions violate particular\nrequirements of the Statute; and (4) The executive orders’\n“cumulative impact” violates the right to bargain collectively\nas guaranteed by the Statute. Id. at 391-92.\n\n Some of the unions moved for preliminary injunctions, but\nall parties ultimately agreed to the district court’s proposal that\nthe dispute be resolved on cross-motions for summary\njudgment, litigated on an expedited briefing schedule.\n\n The district court issued its decision in late August 2018.\nThe court first held that it had subject matter jurisdiction,\nrejecting the government’s argument that jurisdiction belonged\nexclusively to the FLRA and (on direct review from the FLRA)\nthe courts of appeals. Id. at 395-409. On the merits, the district\ncourt ruled that the President has constitutional and statutory\nauthority to issue executive orders in the field of federal labor\nrelations generally, but nine provisions of these executive\norders violated the Statute: Some did so by removing from the\nbargaining table subjects that “must” or “may” be negotiable,\nothers by preventing agencies from bargaining in good faith.\nId. at 412-33. The court enjoined the President’s subordinates\nwithin the executive branch from implementing these\nprovisions. Id. at 440; Order at 2-3, AFGE v. Trump, No. 1:18-\ncv-1261 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2018), Dkt. No. 57.*\n\n *\n The district court also held that several provisions of the\nexecutive orders were consistent with the Statute, AFGE, 318 F.\n\f 7\n\n The government appealed, arguing that the district court\nlacked subject matter jurisdiction and erred in holding unlawful\nthe various provisions of the executive orders. We have\njurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review\nthe district court’s subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Capitol\nHill Grp. v. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLC, 569 F.3d\n485, 489 (D.C. Cir. 2009).\n\n II\n\n We reverse because the district court lacked subject matter\njurisdiction. The unions must pursue their claims through the\nscheme established by the Statute, which provides for\nadministrative review by the FLRA followed by judicial review\nin the courts of appeals.\n\n A\n\n “Within constitutional bounds, Congress decides what\ncases the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider.” Bowles\nv. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 212 (2007). District courts have\njurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution\nand laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C § 1331, but Congress\nmay preclude district court jurisdiction by establishing an\nalternative statutory scheme for administrative and judicial\nreview. To determine whether Congress has done so, we use\nthe two-step framework set forth in Thunder Basin Coal Co. v.\nReich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994). Under that framework, “Congress\nintended that a litigant proceed exclusively through a statutory\n\nSupp. 3d at 437-39; rejected the Take Care Clause claim, id. at 439;\nand did not address the First Amendment claim because the only\nprovision of the executive orders challenged under the First\nAmendment was held unlawful under the Statute, id. at 430 n.16. The\nunions do not contest these decisions on appeal.\n\f 8\nscheme . . . when (i) such intent is ‘fairly discernible in the\nstatutory scheme,’ and (ii) the litigant’s claims are ‘of the type\nCongress intended to be reviewed within [the] statutory\nstructure.’” Jarkesy v. SEC, 803 F.3d 9, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2015)\n(quoting Thunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 207, 212); see Free Enter.\nFund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 489\n(2010).\n\n Here, the district court concluded that the first step is\nsatisfied. AFGE, 318 F. Supp. 3d at 396-97. The parties do not\ndispute this conclusion on appeal, nor could they. “With the\nFSLMRS, as with all of the CSRA: ‘Congress passed an\nenormously complicated and subtle scheme to govern\nemployee relations in the federal sector.’” AFGE v. Sec’y of the\nAir Force, 716 F.3d 633, 636 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting\nSteadman v. Governor, U.S. Soldiers’ & Airmen’s Home, 918\nF.2d 963, 967 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). The scheme “provides the\nexclusive procedures by which federal employees and their\nbargaining representatives may assert federal labor-\nmanagement relations claims.” Id. at 638; see AFGE v. Loy,\n367 F.3d 932, 935 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Thus, we can fairly discern\nthat Congress intended the statutory scheme to be exclusive\nwith respect to claims within its scope.\n\n The parties’ dispute arises at the second step. There, the\ndistrict court held that the unions’ claims are not “of the type”\nCongress intended for review within the statutory scheme.\nAFGE, 318 F. Supp. 3d at 397-409. We disagree.\n\n B\n\n Claims “will be found to fall outside of the scope of a\nspecial statutory scheme in only limited circumstances, when\n(1) a finding of preclusion might foreclose all meaningful\njudicial review; (2) the claim[s] [are] wholly collateral to the\n\f 9\nstatutory review provisions; and (3) the claims are beyond the\nexpertise of the agency.” Arch Coal, Inc. v. Acosta, 888 F.3d\n493, 500 (D.C. Cir. 2018); see Free Enter. Fund, 561 U.S. at\n489; Thunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 212-13. These considerations\ndo not form “three distinct inputs into a strict mathematical\nformula.” Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 17. Rather, they serve as\n“general guideposts useful for channeling the inquiry into\nwhether the particular claims at issue fall outside an\noverarching congressional design.” Id. In this case, all three\nconsiderations demonstrate that the unions must pursue their\nclaims through the statutory scheme and not before the district\ncourt.\n\n 1\n\n First, “all meaningful judicial review” is not foreclosed by\nrequiring the unions to proceed through the statutory scheme.\nSee Arch Coal, 888 F.3d at 500. The unions argue that the\nscheme does not provide for meaningful judicial review\nbecause they are unable to obtain “pre-implementation” review\nof the executive orders or immediate relief barring all agencies\nfrom implementing the executive orders. This argument is\nforeclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Thunder Basin\nand our decision in AFGE v. Secretary of the Air Force, 716\nF.3d 633 (D.C. Cir. 2013).\n\n In Thunder Basin, a mining company’s employees\ndesignated two non-employees to serve as their representatives.\n510 U.S. at 204. Believing this violated the National Labor\nRelations Act (NLRA), the company refused to post their\ncontact information. Id. This refusal would ordinarily have\ndrawn a citation from the mine safety agency, but before that\ncould occur, the company filed a pre-enforcement challenge in\nthe district court, arguing that the designation of non-\nemployees as union representatives violated the NLRA. Id. at\n\f 10\n204-05, 213-14, 216. The Supreme Court held that the district\ncourt’s jurisdiction was precluded by the statutory scheme,\nwhich provided for review before the Mine Safety and Health\nReview Commission followed by appeal to the circuit courts.\nId. at 218. Critically, that review was held “meaningful” even\nthough there was no way for the company to assert its pre-\nenforcement challenge, whether before the Commission or the\ndistrict court. Id. at 212-16. The company was required to wait\nuntil the mine safety agency issued a citation and initiated\nconcrete enforcement proceedings before the Commission. Id.\nat 216. Only through those proceedings—not before the district\ncourt—could the company challenge the designation of the\nnon-employees as violating the NLRA. Id. Here, Thunder\nBasin instructs that the unions are not necessarily entitled to\nraise a pre-implementation challenge in the district court, and\nthat Congress may require them to litigate their claims solely\nthrough the statutory scheme, at least so long as they can\neventually obtain review and relief.\n\n Air Force provides the same guidance, but more\nemphatically and in the specific context of the Statute’s scheme\nfor review. The case began with a regulation requiring certain\ncivilian employees to wear Air Force uniforms. See AFGE v.\nSec’y of the Air Force, 841 F. Supp. 2d 233, 235 (D.D.C. 2012).\nAFGE and its local unions brought an Administrative\nProcedure Act (APA) suit in the district court, challenging the\nregulation as arbitrary and capricious, unlawful under various\nprovisions of Titles 10 and 18 of the U.S. Code, and in excess\nof the Secretary’s authority under Title 10. Id. We held that the\ndistrict court lacked jurisdiction, explaining that the Statute\n“provides the exclusive procedures by which federal\nemployees and their bargaining representatives may assert\nfederal labor-management relations claims,” and “‘federal\nemployees may not circumvent’” the Statute “by seeking\n\f 11\njudicial review outside [its] procedures.” Air Force, 716 F.3d\nat 636, 638 (quoting Steadman, 918 F.2d at 967).\n\n This was so even though AFGE and its local unions could\nnot obtain immediate review of their “pre-implementation”\nclaims before the FLRA, nor could they obtain their preferred\nform of relief. Instead, the statutory scheme provided the local\nunions with more modest “administrative options” for\nchallenging the uniform regulation, followed by judicial review\nin the courts of appeals. Id. at 636-38. For example, a local\nunion could attempt to bargain over the dress code, and if the\nAir Force refused to bargain, the local union could raise a\nnegotiability dispute with the FLRA. Id. at 637 (citing 5 U.S.C.\n§ 7117(c)). A local union could also use a grievance\nproceeding to adjudicate a claim that the dress code violated\nTitle 10. Id. at 637-38 & n.4 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7121). Or a\nunion could challenge the dress code by filing unfair labor\npractice charges. Id. at 638 (citing 5 U.S.C. §§ 7116(a),\n7118(a)). We acknowledged that the unions “may not prevail\nusing one of these procedures or would prefer to challenge the\nAir Force instructions by some other means,” such as an APA\nsuit in district court, but “that does not mean their claims may\nbe brought outside the [Statute’s] exclusive remedial scheme.”\nId.\n\n In fact, we went even further, holding that the unions were\nrequired to raise their challenges through the scheme even if\nthat made it impossible to obtain particular forms of review or\nrelief. The Statute “can preclude a claim from being brought in\na district court even if it forecloses the claim from\nadministrative review” and provides no other way to bring the\nclaim. Id. (emphasis added). For example, AFGE did not wish\nto challenge the uniform regulation on a concrete “local-by-\nlocal” basis through the FLRA but rather sought to do so on a\n“nationwide” basis in an APA suit before the district court. Id.\n\f 12\nat 639. The statutory scheme provided no way to assert such a\n“nationwide” attack, but that did not mean AFGE could resort\nto the courts. Id. at 638. Rather, it meant AFGE “may not raise\nthe claim at all.” Id. Even plaintiffs with “nationwide” or\n“systemwide” challenges may not “circumvent” the scheme\nestablished by the Statute. Id. at 639 (internal quotation marks\nomitted). We also acknowledged that even though the scheme\nmight not afford the unions the same relief they sought in\ndistrict court, the Statute still precluded the district court from\nexercising jurisdiction: “[I]t is the comprehensiveness of the\nstatutory scheme involved, not the adequacy of specific\nremedies thereunder, that counsels judicial abstention.” Id. at\n638 (internal quotation marks omitted).\n\n We need not determine the extent to which Air Force\nwould allow a statutory scheme to foreclose review and relief.\nThis case does not test Air Force’s outer bounds because the\nunions here are not cut off from review and relief. Rather, they\ncan ultimately obtain review of and relief from the executive\norders by litigating their claims through the statutory scheme\nin the context of concrete bargaining disputes.\n\n On the present record, it appears that the Statute provides\nthe unions with several “administrative options” for\nchallenging the executive orders before the FLRA, followed by\njudicial review. See id. at 637. First, if an agency follows the\nexecutive orders’ goal-setting provisions while bargaining with\na union, the union could charge in an unfair labor practice\nproceeding that the agency’s adherence to those provisions\namounted to bad-faith bargaining in violation of the Statute.\nThe FLRA could then determine whether the agency had done\nso, and whether the agency may continue pursuing those goals\nduring bargaining.\n\f 13\n Also, if an agency refuses to bargain over various subjects\nbased on the executive orders’ government-wide rules, the\nunions could charge in a negotiability or unfair labor practice\ndispute that the agency had refused to bargain over mandatory\nmatters in violation of the Statute. In response, the government\ncould argue (as it does here) that 5 U.S.C. § 7117(a)(1)\nauthorizes it to remove subjects from bargaining in this way,\nand the FLRA could then determine whether the government is\ncorrect. See, e.g., Nat’l Fed’n of Fed. Emps. Local 15, 33\nF.L.R.A. 436, 438-39 (1988); AFSCME Local 3097 Union, 31\nF.L.R.A. 322, 345-47 (1988); cf. IRS v. FLRA, 996 F.2d 1246,\n1252 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (reviewing the FLRA’s holding as to\nwhether a government-wide rule displaced the duty to bargain\nunder the Statute, indicating that the FLRA may hear such\nclaims).\n\n The same sequence could occur if an agency refuses to\nbargain over permissive subjects as directed by the executive\norders. The union could charge the agency with violating the\nStatute, and the government could respond (as it does here) by\ninvoking 5 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(1), which states that certain\nsubjects are negotiable “at the election of the agency.” The\nFLRA could then determine whether the agency may refuse to\nbargain in this way.\n\n These administrative options might enable the unions to\nobtain from the FLRA much of the review and relief that they\nsought from the district court. The unions worry that the FLRA\ncannot address all of their claims, especially their broader\nclaims: that the President acted ultra vires or violated the Take\nCare Clause, the First Amendment, or the Statute in issuing the\nexecutive orders. And the unions argue that the FLRA cannot\nentertain suits against the President. Even if true, the latter\npoint does not appear to make FLRA review any less\nmeaningful than district court review in this case, where the\n\f 14\nunions stated that injunctive relief against the President’s\nsubordinates in executive branch agencies was sufficient to\nafford them the relief they sought and the district court did not\ngrant injunctive relief against the President. See Tr. of Mot.\nHr’g at 133-34, AFGE v. Trump, No. 1:18-cv-1261 (D.D.C.\nJuly 25, 2018), Dkt. No. 56; Order at 2-3, AFGE v. Trump, No.\n1:18-cv-1261 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2018), Dkt. No. 57. Instead, the\nunions obtained an order directing that the President’s\nsubordinates may not implement various provisions of the\nexecutive orders during bargaining. Order at 2-3, AFGE v.\nTrump, No. 1:18-cv-1261 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2018), Dkt. No. 57.\nOn this record, it appears that the unions may seek similar\norders through the statutory scheme. Indeed, the government\nhas even taken the position that the FLRA would have the\nauthority to resolve the unions’ broad statutory claims,\nspecifically those asserting that the executive orders are invalid\nor ultra vires under the Statute. See Tr. of Oral Arg. at 42:16-\n43:19 (April 4, 2019).\n\n But we need not map the precise contours of the FLRA’s\nauthority to adjudicate the claims in this case. For even if the\nFLRA could not address the claims, circuit courts could do so\non appeal from the FLRA. The statutory scheme provides that\nthe courts of appeals “shall have jurisdiction of the [FLRA]\nproceeding and of the question determined therein” and “may\nmake and enter a decree affirming and enforcing, modifying\nand enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in whole or in\npart the order of the [FLRA].” 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a), (c). Also,\nthe courts of appeals generally may not consider objections that\nwere not at least “urged” before the FLRA. Id. § 7123(c).\nReviewing similar statutory schemes, the Supreme Court has\nexplained that “[i]t is not unusual for an appellate court\nreviewing the decision of an administrative agency to consider\na constitutional challenge to a federal statute that the agency\nconcluded it lacked authority to decide,” Elgin v. Dep’t of\n\f 15\nTreasury, 567 U.S. 1, 18 n.8 (2012), and we recently elaborated\nthat “it is of no dispositive significance” whether the agency\n“has the authority to rule” on constitutional claims so long as\nthe claims “can eventually reach ‘an Article III court fully\ncompetent to adjudicate’ them,” Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 19\n(quoting Elgin, 567 U.S. at 17); accord Bank of La. v. Fed.\nDeposit Ins. Corp., 919 F.3d 916, 925-26 (5th Cir. 2019). We\nsee no reason why the scheme here would prevent us from\nresolving the unions’ constitutional or statutory challenges\neven if the FLRA could not.\n\n The unions argue, and the district court concluded, that we\nwould not be able to address such challenges because our\njurisdiction is entirely “derivative” of the FLRA’s. Union Br.\n16-18; AFGE, 318 F. Supp. 3d at 400. As the district court put\nit, the Statute does not authorize us “to hear matters that are\nbeyond the scope of the FLRA’s jurisdiction,” AFGE, 318 F.\nSupp. 3d at 400, because it merely grants us jurisdiction over\nthe FLRA “proceeding” and “the question determined therein”\nand authorizes us to affirm, modify, or set aside only the\nFLRA’s order, id. (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c)). We once\nsuggested in a footnote that the Statute would not allow us to\nreview constitutional claims that the FLRA could not consider.\nNat’l Fed’n of Fed. Emps. v. Weinberger, 818 F.2d 935, 940\nn.7 (D.C. Cir. 1987). But this suggestion cannot survive the\nSupreme Court’s decision in Thunder Basin, which involved a\nstatutory scheme that used nearly identical language,\nconferring on appellate courts jurisdiction over the Mine Safety\nand Health Review Commission’s “proceeding” and “the\nquestions determined therein,” with the authority to affirm,\nmodify, or set aside the Commission’s order. 30 U.S.C.\n§ 816(a)(1); see 510 U.S. at 208. The Supreme Court held that\nthis scheme allowed the courts of appeals to “meaningfully\naddress[]” statutory and constitutional claims even if the\nCommission could not. Thunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 215.\n\f 16\nLikewise, Sturm, Ruger & Co. v. Chao, 300 F.3d 867, 868\n(D.C. Cir. 2002), involved a statute that used the same language\nto empower us to review the orders of the Occupational Safety\nand Health Review Commission, see 29 U.S.C. § 660(a). This\nscheme, we explained, permitted us to meaningfully address\nconstitutional claims on appeal from the Commission. Sturm,\n300 F.3d at 874; see also Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 19\n(nondelegation challenge must be channeled through the\nSecurities and Exchange Commission, followed by review in\nthis court, even if the Commission cannot resolve the\nchallenge). The same language in the FSLMRS leads to the\nsame conclusion: we may review the unions’ broad statutory\nand constitutional claims on appeal from an FLRA proceeding\neven if the FLRA cannot.\n\n This conclusion is confirmed by our decision in AFGE v.\nLoy, 367 F.3d 932 (D.C. Cir. 2004). There, several unions\nalleged in district court that an agency directive prohibiting\nairport security screeners from engaging in collective\nbargaining was “ultra vires” and violated the First and Fifth\nAmendments of the Constitution. Id. at 934, 936. We held that\nthe district court lacked jurisdiction and the unions were\nrequired to pursue even their constitutional claims through the\nFSLMRS’s scheme. Id. at 936-37. Our decision might have\nbeen different, we acknowledged, if the scheme “preclude[d]\nall judicial review of” the constitutional claims. Id. (quoting\nThunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 215 n.20). But we found\n“unwarranted” the “assumption” that the courts of appeals\nwould not be able to review the claims on appeal from the\nFLRA. Id. at 937. So too here. As we have explained, we see\nno reason to think that the unions’ claims would be\n“unreviewable” by an appellate court through the statutory\nscheme. See id.; see also Steadman, 918 F.2d at 967 (“Congress\npassed an enormously complicated and subtle scheme to\ngovern employee relations in the federal sector,” and “federal\n\f 17\nemployees may not circumvent that structure even if their\nclaim is based as well on the Constitution.”).\n\n Requiring the unions here to proceed through the\nFSLMRS’s scheme does not foreclose “all meaningful judicial\nreview.” See Arch Coal, 888 F.3d at 500. Although the unions\nare not able to pursue their preferred systemwide challenge\nthrough the scheme, they can ultimately obtain review of and\nrelief from the executive orders by litigating their claims in the\ncontext of concrete bargaining disputes. Such review,\naccording to Thunder Basin, Air Force, and Loy, qualifies as\nmeaningful.\n\n 2\n\n For many of the same reasons, the unions’ claims are not\n“wholly collateral” to the statutory scheme. See Arch Coal, 888\nF.3d at 500. This consideration is “related” to whether\n“meaningful judicial review” is available, and the two\nconsiderations are sometimes analyzed together. Jarkesy, 803\nF.3d at 22. In its most recent decision on this subject, the\nSupreme Court determined whether the plaintiffs’ challenge\nwas “wholly collateral” to a statutory scheme by asking\nwhether the plaintiffs “aimed to obtain the same relief they\ncould seek in the agency proceeding.” Id. at 23 (citing Elgin,\n567 U.S. at 22). The Supreme Court concluded that they did,\nbecause their challenge was of the type that was “regularly\nadjudicated” through the statutory scheme and the statutory\nscheme empowered the agency and the reviewing appellate\ncourt to provide the relief sought by the plaintiffs. Elgin, 567\nU.S. at 22.\n\n The unions’ challenge in this case is of the type that is\nregularly adjudicated through the FSLMRS’s scheme: disputes\nover whether the Statute has been violated. And the unions ask\n\f 18\nthe district court for the same relief that they could ultimately\nobtain through the statutory scheme, namely rulings on\nwhether the executive orders are lawful and directives\nprohibiting agencies from following the executive orders\nduring bargaining disputes. Their challenge is not wholly\ncollateral to the statutory scheme.\n\n 3\n\n Finally, the unions’ claims are not “beyond the expertise”\nof the FLRA. See Arch Coal, 888 F.3d at 500. Many of their\nclaims allege that the executive orders direct agencies to violate\nthe Statute by refusing to bargain over mandatory subjects or\nby taking actions that are inconsistent with the duty to bargain\nin good faith. These matters lie at the core of the FLRA’s\n“specialized expertise in the field of federal labor relations.”\nAFGE Council of Locals No. 214 v. FLRA, 798 F.2d 1525,\n1528 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The FLRA has “primary responsibility\nfor administering and interpreting” the Statute, id.; see 5 U.S.C.\n§ 7105(a), and it serves the “‘special function of applying the\ngeneral provisions of the [Statute] to the complexities’ of\nfederal labor relations,” Nat’l Fed’n of Fed. Emps. Local 1309\nv. Dep’t of Interior, 526 U.S. 86, 99 (1999) (quoting ATF, 464\nU.S. at 97). In doing so, the FLRA “regularly construes” the\nStatute and adjudicates whether governmental actions violate\nthe Statute. See Elgin, 567 U.S. at 23. Indeed, unlike Article III\ncourts, the FLRA’s “ordinary course of business” involves\ndetermining whether subjects are mandatory bargaining topics\nor whether the government has bargained in good faith. See\nJarkesy, 803 F.3d at 28. The FLRA’s familiarity with federal\nlabor-management relations is thus more than “helpful\nbackground knowledge.” AFGE, 318 F. Supp. 3d at 408. It is\nexpertise that goes to the core issues in this case.\n\f 19\n The district court concluded that this consideration\nweighed in favor of exercising its jurisdiction because the\nFLRA’s expertise was “potentially helpful” but “not essential\nto resolving” the unions’ claims. Id. at 408-09 (capitalization\nomitted). But that is not the law. The question we must ask is\nwhether agency expertise may be “brought to bear on” the\nclaims, not whether the expertise is essential. Jarkesy, 803 F.3d\nat 29.\n\n The district court also viewed the unions’ claims as\n“primarily” concerned with “separation-of-powers issues” and\n“whether a statute or the Constitution has authorized the\nPresident to act in a particular way”—issues that are the “bread\nand butter of the Judicial Branch.” AFGE, 318 F. Supp. 3d at\n408 (citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S.\n579, 597 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring), and Marbury v.\nMadison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803)). As already\ndiscussed, many of the claims are not so grand, but rather\nrequire interpreting the FSLMRS—the very law that the FLRA\nis charged with administering and interpreting. Regardless, the\nSupreme Court has “clarified” that “an agency’s relative level\nof insight into the merits of a constitutional question is not\ndeterminative.” Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 28-29 (citing Elgin, 567\nU.S. at 22-23). Even in the absence of constitutional expertise,\nan agency’s expertise in other areas may still weigh in favor of\nadministrative review if the agency could “obviate the need to\naddress” broad constitutional and statutory claims by resolving\na case on other grounds or if the agency could “alleviate\nconstitutional concerns” through its interpretation of its statute.\nId. at 29 (quoting Elgin, 567 U.S. at 22-23); see Bank of La.,\n919 F.3d at 929-30. That is the case here. The FLRA could\n“moot the need to resolve” the unions’ constitutional claims by\nconcluding that the Statute bars agencies from implementing\nthe executive orders. See Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 29; cf. AFGE,\n318 F. Supp. 3d at 430 n.16 (doing just that by declining to\n\f 20\nresolve the First Amendment claim after concluding that the\nprovision at issue ran afoul of the Statute). Also, the FLRA\n“could offer an interpretation of the [Statute] in the course of\nthe proceeding” that might alleviate or “shed light on” the\nconstitutional concerns. See Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 29. After all,\n“there are precious few cases involving interpretation of\nstatutes authorizing agency action in which our review is not\naided by the agency’s statutory construction.” Id. (quoting\nMitchell v. Christopher, 996 F.2d 375, 379 (D.C. Cir. 1993)).\nBecause the FLRA’s expertise can be “brought to bear” on the\nunions’ claims in these ways, “we see no reason to conclude\nthat Congress intended to exempt” the claims from the\nstatutory scheme. Id. (quoting Elgin, 567 U.S. at 23).\n\n III\n\n All three considerations demonstrate that the unions’\nclaims fall within the exclusive statutory scheme, which the\nunions may not bypass by filing suit in the district court. See\nArch Coal, 888 F.3d at 500. Lacking jurisdiction, the district\ncourt had no power to address the merits of the executive\norders. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83,\n94-95 (1998); Kaplan v. Cent. Bank of the Islamic Republic of\nIran, 896 F.3d 501, 510 (D.C. Cir. 2018). We therefore reverse\nthe judgment of the district court holding that it had\njurisdiction, and we vacate the district court’s judgment on the\nmerits.\n\n So ordered.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, Et Al., Appellees v. Donald J. TRUMP, in His Official Capacity as President of the United States, Et Al., Appellants\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-16\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued April 4, 2019 Decided July 16, 2019\\n\\n No. 18-5289\\n\\n AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,\\n AFL-CIO, ET AL.,\\n APPELLEES\\n\\n v.\\n\\n DONALD J. TRUMP, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT\\n OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.,\\n APPELLANTS\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the District of Columbia\\n (No. 1:18-cv-01261)\\n\\n\\n Joseph F. Busa, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,\\nargued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were\\nHashim M. Mooppan, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and\\nMark B. Stern, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice. Sarah\\nCarroll, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, entered an\\nappearance.\\n\\n Andres M. Grajales and Gregory O’Duden argued the\\ncauses for appellees. With them on the joint brief were David\\nA. Borer, Matthew W. Milledge, Larry J. Adkins, Julie M.\\nWilson, Paras N. Shah, Allison C. Giles, Jessica Horne, Judith\\nE. Rivlin, Teague P. Paterson, Michael L. Artz, Jefferson D.\\n\\f 2\\nFriday, David Strom, and Suzanne Summerlin. Keith R. Bolek\\nand Richard J. Hirn entered appearances.\\n\\n Victoria L. Bor, Jonathan D. Newman, Harold C. Becker,\\nMatthew J. Ginsburg, Brian A. Powers, Micah Berul, and\\nAnthony Tucci were on the brief for amici curiae American\\nFederation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Unions, et al.\\nin support of appellees. James B. Coppess entered an\\nappearance.\\n\\n Mark Gisler and Jean-Marc Favreau were on the brief for\\namicus curiae Thomas Wolf, Governor of Pennsylvania, in\\nsupport of appellees. Michael J. Gan entered an appearance.\\n\\n Adina H. Rosenbaum and Adam R. Pulver were on the\\nbrief for amici curiae Representative Elijah Cummings, et al.\\nin support of appellees.\\n\\n Before: GRIFFITH and SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judges, and\\nRANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH.\\n\\n GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: In May 2018, the President\\nissued three executive orders regarding relations between the\\nfederal government and its employees. Unions representing\\nfederal employees brought suit in the district court challenging\\nvarious aspects of the orders. The district court concluded that\\ncertain provisions in the orders were unlawful and enjoined the\\nPresident’s subordinates in the executive branch from\\nimplementing them. We hold that the district court lacked\\njurisdiction and vacate its judgment.\\n\\n I\\n\\f 3\\n A\\n\\n In the 1960s, Presidents used executive orders to grant\\nfederal employees “limited rights to engage in concerted\\nactivity” through unions. ATF v. FLRA, 464 U.S. 89, 91-92\\n(1983); see Exec. Order No. 10,988, Employee-Management\\nCooperation in the Federal Service, 27 Fed. Reg. 551 (Jan. 17,\\n1962); Exec. Order No. 11,491, Labor-Management Relations\\nin the Federal Service, 34 Fed. Reg. 17,605 (Oct. 29, 1969). In\\n1978, Congress enacted the Federal Service Labor-\\nManagement Relations Statute (the “Statute” or FSLMRS) to\\ngovern labor relations between the executive branch and its\\nemployees. The Statute is set forth in Title VII of the Civil\\nService Reform Act (CSRA), Pub. L. No. 95-454, § 701, 92\\nStat. 1111, 1191-1216 (1978) (codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101-\\n35).\\n\\n The Statute grants federal employees the right to organize\\nand bargain collectively, and it requires that unions and federal\\nagencies negotiate in good faith over certain matters. See 5\\nU.S.C. §§ 7102(2), 7103(a)(14), 7106, 7114, 7117(a)(1); ATF,\\n464 U.S. at 91-92. But except as “expressly provided,” the\\nStatute does not limit “any function of, or authority available\\nto, the President which the President had immediately before\\n[its] effective date.” Pub. L. No. 95-454, § 904, 92 Stat. at 1224\\n(codified at 5 U.S.C. § 1101 note).\\n\\n The Statute also establishes a scheme of administrative\\nand judicial review. Administrative review is provided by the\\nFederal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), a three-member\\nagency charged with adjudicating federal labor disputes,\\nincluding “negotiability” disputes and “unfair labor practice”\\ndisputes. See 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a). In negotiability disputes, the\\nFLRA determines whether agencies and unions must bargain\\nover certain subjects. Id. §§ 7105(a)(2)(E), 7117(c)(1). In\\n\\f 4\\nunfair labor practice proceedings, the FLRA resolves whether\\nan agency must bargain over a subject, violated the duty to\\nbargain in good faith, or otherwise failed to comply with the\\nStatute. Id. §§ 7105(a)(2)(G), 7116(a), 7118. The FLRA’s\\ndecisions in such disputes are subject to direct review in the\\ncourts of appeals. Id. § 7123(a), (c).\\n\\n B\\n\\n In May 2018, the President issued three executive orders\\nregarding federal labor-management relations. Among other\\nrequirements, the “Collective Bargaining Order” provides\\nagencies with certain procedures that they should seek to\\ninstitute during negotiations with unions. See Exec. Order No.\\n13,836, Developing Efficient, Effective, and Cost-Reducing\\nApproaches to Federal Sector Collective Bargaining, 83 Fed.\\nReg. 25,329, 25,331-32 (May 25, 2018). This order also tells\\nagencies not to negotiate over “permissive” subjects, id. at\\n25,332, defined as those that are negotiable “at the election of\\nthe agency” under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(1).\\n\\n The “Official Time Order” instructs agencies to aim to\\nlimit the extent to which collective bargaining agreements\\nauthorize “official time,” meaning time spent by employees on\\nunion business during working hours. See Exec. Order No.\\n13,837, Ensuring Transparency, Accountability, and Efficiency\\nin Taxpayer-Funded Union Time Use, 83 Fed. Reg. 25,335,\\n25,336 (May 25, 2018). This order also establishes rules that\\nlimit whether “agency time and resources” may be used by\\nemployees on non-government business. Id. at 25,337\\n(capitalization omitted).\\n\\n The “Removal Procedures Order” tells agencies to seek to\\nexclude from grievance proceedings any dispute over a\\ndecision to remove an employee “for misconduct or\\n\\f 5\\nunacceptable performance.” Exec. Order No. 13,839,\\nPromoting Accountability and Streamlining Removal\\nProcedures Consistent With Merit System Principles, 83 Fed.\\nReg. 25,343, 25,344 (May 25, 2018). Subject to various\\nexceptions, this order also prohibits agencies from resolving\\ndisputes over employee ratings and incentive pay through\\ngrievance or arbitration proceedings, and it mandates that some\\nsubpar employees may have no more than thirty days to\\nimprove their performance before being reassigned, demoted,\\nor fired. Id. at 25,344-45.\\n\\n Although numerous, the various challenged provisions of\\nthe executive orders fall into three categories: provisions that\\n(1) direct agencies to refuse to bargain over “permissive”\\nsubjects based on 5 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(1); (2) establish\\ngovernment-wide rules for employee and agency conduct,\\nwhich may have the effect of removing mandatory subjects\\nfrom bargaining based on 5 U.S.C. § 7117(a)(1); and (3) set\\ngoals that agencies must pursue during bargaining. The\\nexecutive orders enforce these goals by directing agencies to\\n“commit the time and resources necessary” to achieve them\\nand by requiring agencies to notify the President through the\\nOffice of Personnel Management (OPM) if the goals are not\\nmet. 83 Fed. Reg. at 25,331-32, 25,336, 25,344. The orders also\\nrequire agencies “to fulfill their obligation to bargain in good\\nfaith” throughout their dealings with unions. Id. at 25,331,\\n25,336; see also id. at 25,344.\\n\\n C\\n\\n The American Federation of Government Employees\\n(AFGE) and sixteen other federal labor unions immediately\\nchallenged the executive orders in four separate suits against\\nthe President, OPM, and the Director of OPM. AFGE v. Trump,\\n318 F. Supp. 3d 370, 391 (D.D.C. 2018). The suits were\\n\\f 6\\nconsolidated before the district court in June 2018. Id. at 392.\\nAs explained by the district court, the unions asserted four\\ntypes of claims: (1) The executive orders are unlawful because\\nthe President has no authority “at all” to issue executive orders\\nin the field of federal labor relations; (2) The executive orders\\nviolate the Constitution, specifically the Take Care Clause and\\nthe First Amendment right to freedom of association; (3) The\\nexecutive orders and their various provisions violate particular\\nrequirements of the Statute; and (4) The executive orders’\\n“cumulative impact” violates the right to bargain collectively\\nas guaranteed by the Statute. Id. at 391-92.\\n\\n Some of the unions moved for preliminary injunctions, but\\nall parties ultimately agreed to the district court’s proposal that\\nthe dispute be resolved on cross-motions for summary\\njudgment, litigated on an expedited briefing schedule.\\n\\n The district court issued its decision in late August 2018.\\nThe court first held that it had subject matter jurisdiction,\\nrejecting the government’s argument that jurisdiction belonged\\nexclusively to the FLRA and (on direct review from the FLRA)\\nthe courts of appeals. Id. at 395-409. On the merits, the district\\ncourt ruled that the President has constitutional and statutory\\nauthority to issue executive orders in the field of federal labor\\nrelations generally, but nine provisions of these executive\\norders violated the Statute: Some did so by removing from the\\nbargaining table subjects that “must” or “may” be negotiable,\\nothers by preventing agencies from bargaining in good faith.\\nId. at 412-33. The court enjoined the President’s subordinates\\nwithin the executive branch from implementing these\\nprovisions. Id. at 440; Order at 2-3, AFGE v. Trump, No. 1:18-\\ncv-1261 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2018), Dkt. No. 57.*\\n\\n *\\n The district court also held that several provisions of the\\nexecutive orders were consistent with the Statute, AFGE, 318 F.\\n\\f 7\\n\\n The government appealed, arguing that the district court\\nlacked subject matter jurisdiction and erred in holding unlawful\\nthe various provisions of the executive orders. We have\\njurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review\\nthe district court’s subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Capitol\\nHill Grp. v. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLC, 569 F.3d\\n485, 489 (D.C. Cir. 2009).\\n\\n II\\n\\n We reverse because the district court lacked subject matter\\njurisdiction. The unions must pursue their claims through the\\nscheme established by the Statute, which provides for\\nadministrative review by the FLRA followed by judicial review\\nin the courts of appeals.\\n\\n A\\n\\n “Within constitutional bounds, Congress decides what\\ncases the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider.” Bowles\\nv. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 212 (2007). District courts have\\njurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution\\nand laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C § 1331, but Congress\\nmay preclude district court jurisdiction by establishing an\\nalternative statutory scheme for administrative and judicial\\nreview. To determine whether Congress has done so, we use\\nthe two-step framework set forth in Thunder Basin Coal Co. v.\\nReich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994). Under that framework, “Congress\\nintended that a litigant proceed exclusively through a statutory\\n\\nSupp. 3d at 437-39; rejected the Take Care Clause claim, id. at 439;\\nand did not address the First Amendment claim because the only\\nprovision of the executive orders challenged under the First\\nAmendment was held unlawful under the Statute, id. at 430 n.16. The\\nunions do not contest these decisions on appeal.\\n\\f 8\\nscheme . . . when (i) such intent is ‘fairly discernible in the\\nstatutory scheme,’ and (ii) the litigant’s claims are ‘of the type\\nCongress intended to be reviewed within [the] statutory\\nstructure.’” Jarkesy v. SEC, 803 F.3d 9, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2015)\\n(quoting Thunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 207, 212); see Free Enter.\\nFund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 489\\n(2010).\\n\\n Here, the district court concluded that the first step is\\nsatisfied. AFGE, 318 F. Supp. 3d at 396-97. The parties do not\\ndispute this conclusion on appeal, nor could they. “With the\\nFSLMRS, as with all of the CSRA: ‘Congress passed an\\nenormously complicated and subtle scheme to govern\\nemployee relations in the federal sector.’” AFGE v. Sec’y of the\\nAir Force, 716 F.3d 633, 636 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting\\nSteadman v. Governor, U.S. Soldiers’ & Airmen’s Home, 918\\nF.2d 963, 967 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). The scheme “provides the\\nexclusive procedures by which federal employees and their\\nbargaining representatives may assert federal labor-\\nmanagement relations claims.” Id. at 638; see AFGE v. Loy,\\n367 F.3d 932, 935 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Thus, we can fairly discern\\nthat Congress intended the statutory scheme to be exclusive\\nwith respect to claims within its scope.\\n\\n The parties’ dispute arises at the second step. There, the\\ndistrict court held that the unions’ claims are not “of the type”\\nCongress intended for review within the statutory scheme.\\nAFGE, 318 F. Supp. 3d at 397-409. We disagree.\\n\\n B\\n\\n Claims “will be found to fall outside of the scope of a\\nspecial statutory scheme in only limited circumstances, when\\n(1) a finding of preclusion might foreclose all meaningful\\njudicial review; (2) the claim[s] [are] wholly collateral to the\\n\\f 9\\nstatutory review provisions; and (3) the claims are beyond the\\nexpertise of the agency.” Arch Coal, Inc. v. Acosta, 888 F.3d\\n493, 500 (D.C. Cir. 2018); see Free Enter. Fund, 561 U.S. at\\n489; Thunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 212-13. These considerations\\ndo not form “three distinct inputs into a strict mathematical\\nformula.” Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 17. Rather, they serve as\\n“general guideposts useful for channeling the inquiry into\\nwhether the particular claims at issue fall outside an\\noverarching congressional design.” Id. In this case, all three\\nconsiderations demonstrate that the unions must pursue their\\nclaims through the statutory scheme and not before the district\\ncourt.\\n\\n 1\\n\\n First, “all meaningful judicial review” is not foreclosed by\\nrequiring the unions to proceed through the statutory scheme.\\nSee Arch Coal, 888 F.3d at 500. The unions argue that the\\nscheme does not provide for meaningful judicial review\\nbecause they are unable to obtain “pre-implementation” review\\nof the executive orders or immediate relief barring all agencies\\nfrom implementing the executive orders. This argument is\\nforeclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Thunder Basin\\nand our decision in AFGE v. Secretary of the Air Force, 716\\nF.3d 633 (D.C. Cir. 2013).\\n\\n In Thunder Basin, a mining company’s employees\\ndesignated two non-employees to serve as their representatives.\\n510 U.S. at 204. Believing this violated the National Labor\\nRelations Act (NLRA), the company refused to post their\\ncontact information. Id. This refusal would ordinarily have\\ndrawn a citation from the mine safety agency, but before that\\ncould occur, the company filed a pre-enforcement challenge in\\nthe district court, arguing that the designation of non-\\nemployees as union representatives violated the NLRA. Id. at\\n\\f 10\\n204-05, 213-14, 216. The Supreme Court held that the district\\ncourt’s jurisdiction was precluded by the statutory scheme,\\nwhich provided for review before the Mine Safety and Health\\nReview Commission followed by appeal to the circuit courts.\\nId. at 218. Critically, that review was held “meaningful” even\\nthough there was no way for the company to assert its pre-\\nenforcement challenge, whether before the Commission or the\\ndistrict court. Id. at 212-16. The company was required to wait\\nuntil the mine safety agency issued a citation and initiated\\nconcrete enforcement proceedings before the Commission. Id.\\nat 216. Only through those proceedings—not before the district\\ncourt—could the company challenge the designation of the\\nnon-employees as violating the NLRA. Id. Here, Thunder\\nBasin instructs that the unions are not necessarily entitled to\\nraise a pre-implementation challenge in the district court, and\\nthat Congress may require them to litigate their claims solely\\nthrough the statutory scheme, at least so long as they can\\neventually obtain review and relief.\\n\\n Air Force provides the same guidance, but more\\nemphatically and in the specific context of the Statute’s scheme\\nfor review. The case began with a regulation requiring certain\\ncivilian employees to wear Air Force uniforms. See AFGE v.\\nSec’y of the Air Force, 841 F. Supp. 2d 233, 235 (D.D.C. 2012).\\nAFGE and its local unions brought an Administrative\\nProcedure Act (APA) suit in the district court, challenging the\\nregulation as arbitrary and capricious, unlawful under various\\nprovisions of Titles 10 and 18 of the U.S. Code, and in excess\\nof the Secretary’s authority under Title 10. Id. We held that the\\ndistrict court lacked jurisdiction, explaining that the Statute\\n“provides the exclusive procedures by which federal\\nemployees and their bargaining representatives may assert\\nfederal labor-management relations claims,” and “‘federal\\nemployees may not circumvent’” the Statute “by seeking\\n\\f 11\\njudicial review outside [its] procedures.” Air Force, 716 F.3d\\nat 636, 638 (quoting Steadman, 918 F.2d at 967).\\n\\n This was so even though AFGE and its local unions could\\nnot obtain immediate review of their “pre-implementation”\\nclaims before the FLRA, nor could they obtain their preferred\\nform of relief. Instead, the statutory scheme provided the local\\nunions with more modest “administrative options” for\\nchallenging the uniform regulation, followed by judicial review\\nin the courts of appeals. Id. at 636-38. For example, a local\\nunion could attempt to bargain over the dress code, and if the\\nAir Force refused to bargain, the local union could raise a\\nnegotiability dispute with the FLRA. Id. at 637 (citing 5 U.S.C.\\n§ 7117(c)). A local union could also use a grievance\\nproceeding to adjudicate a claim that the dress code violated\\nTitle 10. Id. at 637-38 & n.4 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7121). Or a\\nunion could challenge the dress code by filing unfair labor\\npractice charges. Id. at 638 (citing 5 U.S.C. §§ 7116(a),\\n7118(a)). We acknowledged that the unions “may not prevail\\nusing one of these procedures or would prefer to challenge the\\nAir Force instructions by some other means,” such as an APA\\nsuit in district court, but “that does not mean their claims may\\nbe brought outside the [Statute’s] exclusive remedial scheme.”\\nId.\\n\\n In fact, we went even further, holding that the unions were\\nrequired to raise their challenges through the scheme even if\\nthat made it impossible to obtain particular forms of review or\\nrelief. The Statute “can preclude a claim from being brought in\\na district court even if it forecloses the claim from\\nadministrative review” and provides no other way to bring the\\nclaim. Id. (emphasis added). For example, AFGE did not wish\\nto challenge the uniform regulation on a concrete “local-by-\\nlocal” basis through the FLRA but rather sought to do so on a\\n“nationwide” basis in an APA suit before the district court. Id.\\n\\f 12\\nat 639. The statutory scheme provided no way to assert such a\\n“nationwide” attack, but that did not mean AFGE could resort\\nto the courts. Id. at 638. Rather, it meant AFGE “may not raise\\nthe claim at all.” Id. Even plaintiffs with “nationwide” or\\n“systemwide” challenges may not “circumvent” the scheme\\nestablished by the Statute. Id. at 639 (internal quotation marks\\nomitted). We also acknowledged that even though the scheme\\nmight not afford the unions the same relief they sought in\\ndistrict court, the Statute still precluded the district court from\\nexercising jurisdiction: “[I]t is the comprehensiveness of the\\nstatutory scheme involved, not the adequacy of specific\\nremedies thereunder, that counsels judicial abstention.” Id. at\\n638 (internal quotation marks omitted).\\n\\n We need not determine the extent to which Air Force\\nwould allow a statutory scheme to foreclose review and relief.\\nThis case does not test Air Force’s outer bounds because the\\nunions here are not cut off from review and relief. Rather, they\\ncan ultimately obtain review of and relief from the executive\\norders by litigating their claims through the statutory scheme\\nin the context of concrete bargaining disputes.\\n\\n On the present record, it appears that the Statute provides\\nthe unions with several “administrative options” for\\nchallenging the executive orders before the FLRA, followed by\\njudicial review. See id. at 637. First, if an agency follows the\\nexecutive orders’ goal-setting provisions while bargaining with\\na union, the union could charge in an unfair labor practice\\nproceeding that the agency’s adherence to those provisions\\namounted to bad-faith bargaining in violation of the Statute.\\nThe FLRA could then determine whether the agency had done\\nso, and whether the agency may continue pursuing those goals\\nduring bargaining.\\n\\f 13\\n Also, if an agency refuses to bargain over various subjects\\nbased on the executive orders’ government-wide rules, the\\nunions could charge in a negotiability or unfair labor practice\\ndispute that the agency had refused to bargain over mandatory\\nmatters in violation of the Statute. In response, the government\\ncould argue (as it does here) that 5 U.S.C. § 7117(a)(1)\\nauthorizes it to remove subjects from bargaining in this way,\\nand the FLRA could then determine whether the government is\\ncorrect. See, e.g., Nat’l Fed’n of Fed. Emps. Local 15, 33\\nF.L.R.A. 436, 438-39 (1988); AFSCME Local 3097 Union, 31\\nF.L.R.A. 322, 345-47 (1988); cf. IRS v. FLRA, 996 F.2d 1246,\\n1252 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (reviewing the FLRA’s holding as to\\nwhether a government-wide rule displaced the duty to bargain\\nunder the Statute, indicating that the FLRA may hear such\\nclaims).\\n\\n The same sequence could occur if an agency refuses to\\nbargain over permissive subjects as directed by the executive\\norders. The union could charge the agency with violating the\\nStatute, and the government could respond (as it does here) by\\ninvoking 5 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(1), which states that certain\\nsubjects are negotiable “at the election of the agency.” The\\nFLRA could then determine whether the agency may refuse to\\nbargain in this way.\\n\\n These administrative options might enable the unions to\\nobtain from the FLRA much of the review and relief that they\\nsought from the district court. The unions worry that the FLRA\\ncannot address all of their claims, especially their broader\\nclaims: that the President acted ultra vires or violated the Take\\nCare Clause, the First Amendment, or the Statute in issuing the\\nexecutive orders. And the unions argue that the FLRA cannot\\nentertain suits against the President. Even if true, the latter\\npoint does not appear to make FLRA review any less\\nmeaningful than district court review in this case, where the\\n\\f 14\\nunions stated that injunctive relief against the President’s\\nsubordinates in executive branch agencies was sufficient to\\nafford them the relief they sought and the district court did not\\ngrant injunctive relief against the President. See Tr. of Mot.\\nHr’g at 133-34, AFGE v. Trump, No. 1:18-cv-1261 (D.D.C.\\nJuly 25, 2018), Dkt. No. 56; Order at 2-3, AFGE v. Trump, No.\\n1:18-cv-1261 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2018), Dkt. No. 57. Instead, the\\nunions obtained an order directing that the President’s\\nsubordinates may not implement various provisions of the\\nexecutive orders during bargaining. Order at 2-3, AFGE v.\\nTrump, No. 1:18-cv-1261 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2018), Dkt. No. 57.\\nOn this record, it appears that the unions may seek similar\\norders through the statutory scheme. Indeed, the government\\nhas even taken the position that the FLRA would have the\\nauthority to resolve the unions’ broad statutory claims,\\nspecifically those asserting that the executive orders are invalid\\nor ultra vires under the Statute. See Tr. of Oral Arg. at 42:16-\\n43:19 (April 4, 2019).\\n\\n But we need not map the precise contours of the FLRA’s\\nauthority to adjudicate the claims in this case. For even if the\\nFLRA could not address the claims, circuit courts could do so\\non appeal from the FLRA. The statutory scheme provides that\\nthe courts of appeals “shall have jurisdiction of the [FLRA]\\nproceeding and of the question determined therein” and “may\\nmake and enter a decree affirming and enforcing, modifying\\nand enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in whole or in\\npart the order of the [FLRA].” 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a), (c). Also,\\nthe courts of appeals generally may not consider objections that\\nwere not at least “urged” before the FLRA. Id. § 7123(c).\\nReviewing similar statutory schemes, the Supreme Court has\\nexplained that “[i]t is not unusual for an appellate court\\nreviewing the decision of an administrative agency to consider\\na constitutional challenge to a federal statute that the agency\\nconcluded it lacked authority to decide,” Elgin v. Dep’t of\\n\\f 15\\nTreasury, 567 U.S. 1, 18 n.8 (2012), and we recently elaborated\\nthat “it is of no dispositive significance” whether the agency\\n“has the authority to rule” on constitutional claims so long as\\nthe claims “can eventually reach ‘an Article III court fully\\ncompetent to adjudicate’ them,” Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 19\\n(quoting Elgin, 567 U.S. at 17); accord Bank of La. v. Fed.\\nDeposit Ins. Corp., 919 F.3d 916, 925-26 (5th Cir. 2019). We\\nsee no reason why the scheme here would prevent us from\\nresolving the unions’ constitutional or statutory challenges\\neven if the FLRA could not.\\n\\n The unions argue, and the district court concluded, that we\\nwould not be able to address such challenges because our\\njurisdiction is entirely “derivative” of the FLRA’s. Union Br.\\n16-18; AFGE, 318 F. Supp. 3d at 400. As the district court put\\nit, the Statute does not authorize us “to hear matters that are\\nbeyond the scope of the FLRA’s jurisdiction,” AFGE, 318 F.\\nSupp. 3d at 400, because it merely grants us jurisdiction over\\nthe FLRA “proceeding” and “the question determined therein”\\nand authorizes us to affirm, modify, or set aside only the\\nFLRA’s order, id. (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c)). We once\\nsuggested in a footnote that the Statute would not allow us to\\nreview constitutional claims that the FLRA could not consider.\\nNat’l Fed’n of Fed. Emps. v. Weinberger, 818 F.2d 935, 940\\nn.7 (D.C. Cir. 1987). But this suggestion cannot survive the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Thunder Basin, which involved a\\nstatutory scheme that used nearly identical language,\\nconferring on appellate courts jurisdiction over the Mine Safety\\nand Health Review Commission’s “proceeding” and “the\\nquestions determined therein,” with the authority to affirm,\\nmodify, or set aside the Commission’s order. 30 U.S.C.\\n§ 816(a)(1); see 510 U.S. at 208. The Supreme Court held that\\nthis scheme allowed the courts of appeals to “meaningfully\\naddress[]” statutory and constitutional claims even if the\\nCommission could not. Thunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 215.\\n\\f 16\\nLikewise, Sturm, Ruger & Co. v. Chao, 300 F.3d 867, 868\\n(D.C. Cir. 2002), involved a statute that used the same language\\nto empower us to review the orders of the Occupational Safety\\nand Health Review Commission, see 29 U.S.C. § 660(a). This\\nscheme, we explained, permitted us to meaningfully address\\nconstitutional claims on appeal from the Commission. Sturm,\\n300 F.3d at 874; see also Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 19\\n(nondelegation challenge must be channeled through the\\nSecurities and Exchange Commission, followed by review in\\nthis court, even if the Commission cannot resolve the\\nchallenge). The same language in the FSLMRS leads to the\\nsame conclusion: we may review the unions’ broad statutory\\nand constitutional claims on appeal from an FLRA proceeding\\neven if the FLRA cannot.\\n\\n This conclusion is confirmed by our decision in AFGE v.\\nLoy, 367 F.3d 932 (D.C. Cir. 2004). There, several unions\\nalleged in district court that an agency directive prohibiting\\nairport security screeners from engaging in collective\\nbargaining was “ultra vires” and violated the First and Fifth\\nAmendments of the Constitution. Id. at 934, 936. We held that\\nthe district court lacked jurisdiction and the unions were\\nrequired to pursue even their constitutional claims through the\\nFSLMRS’s scheme. Id. at 936-37. Our decision might have\\nbeen different, we acknowledged, if the scheme “preclude[d]\\nall judicial review of” the constitutional claims. Id. (quoting\\nThunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 215 n.20). But we found\\n“unwarranted” the “assumption” that the courts of appeals\\nwould not be able to review the claims on appeal from the\\nFLRA. Id. at 937. So too here. As we have explained, we see\\nno reason to think that the unions’ claims would be\\n“unreviewable” by an appellate court through the statutory\\nscheme. See id.; see also Steadman, 918 F.2d at 967 (“Congress\\npassed an enormously complicated and subtle scheme to\\ngovern employee relations in the federal sector,” and “federal\\n\\f 17\\nemployees may not circumvent that structure even if their\\nclaim is based as well on the Constitution.”).\\n\\n Requiring the unions here to proceed through the\\nFSLMRS’s scheme does not foreclose “all meaningful judicial\\nreview.” See Arch Coal, 888 F.3d at 500. Although the unions\\nare not able to pursue their preferred systemwide challenge\\nthrough the scheme, they can ultimately obtain review of and\\nrelief from the executive orders by litigating their claims in the\\ncontext of concrete bargaining disputes. Such review,\\naccording to Thunder Basin, Air Force, and Loy, qualifies as\\nmeaningful.\\n\\n 2\\n\\n For many of the same reasons, the unions’ claims are not\\n“wholly collateral” to the statutory scheme. See Arch Coal, 888\\nF.3d at 500. This consideration is “related” to whether\\n“meaningful judicial review” is available, and the two\\nconsiderations are sometimes analyzed together. Jarkesy, 803\\nF.3d at 22. In its most recent decision on this subject, the\\nSupreme Court determined whether the plaintiffs’ challenge\\nwas “wholly collateral” to a statutory scheme by asking\\nwhether the plaintiffs “aimed to obtain the same relief they\\ncould seek in the agency proceeding.” Id. at 23 (citing Elgin,\\n567 U.S. at 22). The Supreme Court concluded that they did,\\nbecause their challenge was of the type that was “regularly\\nadjudicated” through the statutory scheme and the statutory\\nscheme empowered the agency and the reviewing appellate\\ncourt to provide the relief sought by the plaintiffs. Elgin, 567\\nU.S. at 22.\\n\\n The unions’ challenge in this case is of the type that is\\nregularly adjudicated through the FSLMRS’s scheme: disputes\\nover whether the Statute has been violated. And the unions ask\\n\\f 18\\nthe district court for the same relief that they could ultimately\\nobtain through the statutory scheme, namely rulings on\\nwhether the executive orders are lawful and directives\\nprohibiting agencies from following the executive orders\\nduring bargaining disputes. Their challenge is not wholly\\ncollateral to the statutory scheme.\\n\\n 3\\n\\n Finally, the unions’ claims are not “beyond the expertise”\\nof the FLRA. See Arch Coal, 888 F.3d at 500. Many of their\\nclaims allege that the executive orders direct agencies to violate\\nthe Statute by refusing to bargain over mandatory subjects or\\nby taking actions that are inconsistent with the duty to bargain\\nin good faith. These matters lie at the core of the FLRA’s\\n“specialized expertise in the field of federal labor relations.”\\nAFGE Council of Locals No. 214 v. FLRA, 798 F.2d 1525,\\n1528 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The FLRA has “primary responsibility\\nfor administering and interpreting” the Statute, id.; see 5 U.S.C.\\n§ 7105(a), and it serves the “‘special function of applying the\\ngeneral provisions of the [Statute] to the complexities’ of\\nfederal labor relations,” Nat’l Fed’n of Fed. Emps. Local 1309\\nv. Dep’t of Interior, 526 U.S. 86, 99 (1999) (quoting ATF, 464\\nU.S. at 97). In doing so, the FLRA “regularly construes” the\\nStatute and adjudicates whether governmental actions violate\\nthe Statute. See Elgin, 567 U.S. at 23. Indeed, unlike Article III\\ncourts, the FLRA’s “ordinary course of business” involves\\ndetermining whether subjects are mandatory bargaining topics\\nor whether the government has bargained in good faith. See\\nJarkesy, 803 F.3d at 28. The FLRA’s familiarity with federal\\nlabor-management relations is thus more than “helpful\\nbackground knowledge.” AFGE, 318 F. Supp. 3d at 408. It is\\nexpertise that goes to the core issues in this case.\\n\\f 19\\n The district court concluded that this consideration\\nweighed in favor of exercising its jurisdiction because the\\nFLRA’s expertise was “potentially helpful” but “not essential\\nto resolving” the unions’ claims. Id. at 408-09 (capitalization\\nomitted). But that is not the law. The question we must ask is\\nwhether agency expertise may be “brought to bear on” the\\nclaims, not whether the expertise is essential. Jarkesy, 803 F.3d\\nat 29.\\n\\n The district court also viewed the unions’ claims as\\n“primarily” concerned with “separation-of-powers issues” and\\n“whether a statute or the Constitution has authorized the\\nPresident to act in a particular way”—issues that are the “bread\\nand butter of the Judicial Branch.” AFGE, 318 F. Supp. 3d at\\n408 (citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S.\\n579, 597 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring), and Marbury v.\\nMadison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803)). As already\\ndiscussed, many of the claims are not so grand, but rather\\nrequire interpreting the FSLMRS—the very law that the FLRA\\nis charged with administering and interpreting. Regardless, the\\nSupreme Court has “clarified” that “an agency’s relative level\\nof insight into the merits of a constitutional question is not\\ndeterminative.” Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 28-29 (citing Elgin, 567\\nU.S. at 22-23). Even in the absence of constitutional expertise,\\nan agency’s expertise in other areas may still weigh in favor of\\nadministrative review if the agency could “obviate the need to\\naddress” broad constitutional and statutory claims by resolving\\na case on other grounds or if the agency could “alleviate\\nconstitutional concerns” through its interpretation of its statute.\\nId. at 29 (quoting Elgin, 567 U.S. at 22-23); see Bank of La.,\\n919 F.3d at 929-30. That is the case here. The FLRA could\\n“moot the need to resolve” the unions’ constitutional claims by\\nconcluding that the Statute bars agencies from implementing\\nthe executive orders. See Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 29; cf. AFGE,\\n318 F. Supp. 3d at 430 n.16 (doing just that by declining to\\n\\f 20\\nresolve the First Amendment claim after concluding that the\\nprovision at issue ran afoul of the Statute). Also, the FLRA\\n“could offer an interpretation of the [Statute] in the course of\\nthe proceeding” that might alleviate or “shed light on” the\\nconstitutional concerns. See Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 29. After all,\\n“there are precious few cases involving interpretation of\\nstatutes authorizing agency action in which our review is not\\naided by the agency’s statutory construction.” Id. (quoting\\nMitchell v. Christopher, 996 F.2d 375, 379 (D.C. Cir. 1993)).\\nBecause the FLRA’s expertise can be “brought to bear” on the\\nunions’ claims in these ways, “we see no reason to conclude\\nthat Congress intended to exempt” the claims from the\\nstatutory scheme. Id. (quoting Elgin, 567 U.S. at 23).\\n\\n III\\n\\n All three considerations demonstrate that the unions’\\nclaims fall within the exclusive statutory scheme, which the\\nunions may not bypass by filing suit in the district court. See\\nArch Coal, 888 F.3d at 500. Lacking jurisdiction, the district\\ncourt had no power to address the merits of the executive\\norders. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83,\\n94-95 (1998); Kaplan v. Cent. Bank of the Islamic Republic of\\nIran, 896 F.3d 501, 510 (D.C. Cir. 2018). We therefore reverse\\nthe judgment of the district court holding that it had\\njurisdiction, and we vacate the district court’s judgment on the\\nmerits.\\n\\n So ordered.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3453,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":7336764,"string":"7,336,764"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"SCOTTSDALE CAPITAL ADVISORS CORPORATION v. FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Scottsdale Capital Advisors Corp. v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-16"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"Case No. 18-cv-2973 (CRC)"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254684/\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336764/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: SCOTTSDALE CAPITAL ADVISORS CORPORATION v. FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-16\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: SCOTTSDALE CAPITAL ADVISORS CORPORATION v. FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-16\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3454,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4640292,"string":"4,640,292"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Randy Brown v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (ORDER)"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-17"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-7174"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"BEFORE: Rogers, Griffith, and Katsas, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the November 29, 2018 order to show cause why this\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PER CURIAM\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n ____________\\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\\n 1:14-cv-02031-ABJ\\n Filed On: July 17, 2019\\nRandy Brown,\\n\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\nJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.,\\n\\n Appellees\\n\\n BEFORE: Rogers, Griffith, and Katsas, Circuit Judges\\n\\n ORDER\\n\\n Upon consideration of the November 29, 2018 order to show cause why this\\nappeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, appellant’s brief and the\\nsupplements thereto, which the court construes as a response to the order to show\\ncause, appellee’s responses, and appellant’s reply; and the motion for a preliminary\\ninjunction, and the response thereto, it is\\n\\n ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is\\n\\n FURTHER ORDERED that this appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.\\nAppellant has not demonstrated that either the collateral order doctrine, see Mohawk\\nIndustries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009), or the interlocutory appeal\\nstatute, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), applies to the only order on appeal in this case: the district\\ncourt’s interlocutory November 6, 2018 minute order denying appellant’s motion to\\namend his complaint and his request to reconsider the court’s alleged “refusal to review\\nplaintiff’s pleadings in toto.”\\n\\n This court has jurisdiction over “appeals from all final decisions of the district\\ncourts of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Courts give 28 U.S.C. § 1291 a\\n“‘practical rather than a technical construction,’” and may therefore exercise jurisdiction\\nover “a ‘small class’ of collateral rulings that, although they do not end the litigation, are\\nappropriately deemed ‘final.’” Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S. at 106 (quoting Cohen v.\\nBeneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949)).\\n\\f United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n ____________\\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\\n\\n Pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, courts may review interlocutory orders\\nof the district court “that are conclusive, that resolve important questions separate from\\nthe merits, and that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in\\nthe underlying action.” Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S. at 106. The collateral order\\ndoctrine, however, does not apply to an interlocutory order denying a motion for leave\\nto amend a complaint, because such an order may be effectively reviewed in an appeal\\nfrom a final judgment. See, e.g., Bridges v. Dep’t of Maryland State Police, 441 F.3d\\n197, 206 (4th Cir. 2006) (“A denial of a motion to amend a complaint is not a final order,\\nnor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.”); Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of\\nSan Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Such orders, as a class, contemplate\\nfurther proceedings in the district court, and this court has previously held that review is\\navailable after the final judgment, into which they merge.”).\\n\\n Appellant also cites to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S.\\n201 (1848), for the broad principal that interlocutory orders affecting a party’s property\\nrights are immediately appealable. Insofar as Forgay presents a jurisdictional ground\\nindependent of the collateral order doctrine – a proposition this court has previously\\ndoubted, see Pigford v. Veneman, 369 F.3d 545, 547 (D.C. Cir. 2004) – Brown has not\\ndemonstrated that the order on appeal affected his property rights.\\n\\n Finally, the interlocutory appeal statute permits review of “[i]nterlocutory orders of\\nthe district courts of the United States . . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or\\ndissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a\\ndirect review may be had in the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The order on\\nappeal here, however, had no such effect; it denied appellant’s motion for leave to file\\nan amended complaint, and addressed his concern that his race discrimination claims\\nhad been improperly disallowed. It is\\n\\n FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for a preliminary injunction be dismissed\\nas moot.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Page 2\\n\\f United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n ____________\\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\\n\\n The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven\\ndays after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en\\nbanc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.\\n\\n Per Curiam\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR THE COURT:\\n Mark J. Langer, Clerk\\n\\n BY: /s/\\n\\n Ken Meadows\\n Deputy Clerk\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Page 3\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4417545/\", \"author_raw\": \"PER CURIAM\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROGERS"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"GRIFFITH"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"KATSAS"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4640292/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Randy Brown v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (ORDER)\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-17\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n ____________\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\n 1:14-cv-02031-ABJ\n Filed On: July 17, 2019\nRandy Brown,\n\n Appellant\n\n v.\n\nJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.,\n\n Appellees\n\n BEFORE: Rogers, Griffith, and Katsas, Circuit Judges\n\n ORDER\n\n Upon consideration of the November 29, 2018 order to show cause why this\nappeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, appellant’s brief and the\nsupplements thereto, which the court construes as a response to the order to show\ncause, appellee’s responses, and appellant’s reply; and the motion for a preliminary\ninjunction, and the response thereto, it is\n\n ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is\n\n FURTHER ORDERED that this appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.\nAppellant has not demonstrated that either the collateral order doctrine, see Mohawk\nIndustries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009), or the interlocutory appeal\nstatute, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), applies to the only order on appeal in this case: the district\ncourt’s interlocutory November 6, 2018 minute order denying appellant’s motion to\namend his complaint and his request to reconsider the court’s alleged “refusal to review\nplaintiff’s pleadings in toto.”\n\n This court has jurisdiction over “appeals from all final decisions of the district\ncourts of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Courts give 28 U.S.C. § 1291 a\n“‘practical rather than a technical construction,’” and may therefore exercise jurisdiction\nover “a ‘small class’ of collateral rulings that, although they do not end the litigation, are\nappropriately deemed ‘final.’” Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S. at 106 (quoting Cohen v.\nBeneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949)).\n\f United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n ____________\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\n\n Pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, courts may review interlocutory orders\nof the district court “that are conclusive, that resolve important questions separate from\nthe merits, and that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in\nthe underlying action.” Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S. at 106. The collateral order\ndoctrine, however, does not apply to an interlocutory order denying a motion for leave\nto amend a complaint, because such an order may be effectively reviewed in an appeal\nfrom a final judgment. See, e.g., Bridges v. Dep’t of Maryland State Police, 441 F.3d\n197, 206 (4th Cir. 2006) (“A denial of a motion to amend a complaint is not a final order,\nnor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.”); Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of\nSan Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Such orders, as a class, contemplate\nfurther proceedings in the district court, and this court has previously held that review is\navailable after the final judgment, into which they merge.”).\n\n Appellant also cites to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S.\n201 (1848), for the broad principal that interlocutory orders affecting a party’s property\nrights are immediately appealable. Insofar as Forgay presents a jurisdictional ground\nindependent of the collateral order doctrine – a proposition this court has previously\ndoubted, see Pigford v. Veneman, 369 F.3d 545, 547 (D.C. Cir. 2004) – Brown has not\ndemonstrated that the order on appeal affected his property rights.\n\n Finally, the interlocutory appeal statute permits review of “[i]nterlocutory orders of\nthe district courts of the United States . . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or\ndissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a\ndirect review may be had in the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The order on\nappeal here, however, had no such effect; it denied appellant’s motion for leave to file\nan amended complaint, and addressed his concern that his race discrimination claims\nhad been improperly disallowed. It is\n\n FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for a preliminary injunction be dismissed\nas moot.\n\n\n\n\n Page 2\n\f United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n ____________\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\n\n The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven\ndays after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en\nbanc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.\n\n Per Curiam\n\n\n\n FOR THE COURT:\n Mark J. Langer, Clerk\n\n BY: /s/\n\n Ken Meadows\n Deputy Clerk\n\n\n\n\n Page 3\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Randy Brown v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (ORDER)\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-17\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n ____________\\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\\n 1:14-cv-02031-ABJ\\n Filed On: July 17, 2019\\nRandy Brown,\\n\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\nJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.,\\n\\n Appellees\\n\\n BEFORE: Rogers, Griffith, and Katsas, Circuit Judges\\n\\n ORDER\\n\\n Upon consideration of the November 29, 2018 order to show cause why this\\nappeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, appellant’s brief and the\\nsupplements thereto, which the court construes as a response to the order to show\\ncause, appellee’s responses, and appellant’s reply; and the motion for a preliminary\\ninjunction, and the response thereto, it is\\n\\n ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is\\n\\n FURTHER ORDERED that this appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.\\nAppellant has not demonstrated that either the collateral order doctrine, see Mohawk\\nIndustries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009), or the interlocutory appeal\\nstatute, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), applies to the only order on appeal in this case: the district\\ncourt’s interlocutory November 6, 2018 minute order denying appellant’s motion to\\namend his complaint and his request to reconsider the court’s alleged “refusal to review\\nplaintiff’s pleadings in toto.”\\n\\n This court has jurisdiction over “appeals from all final decisions of the district\\ncourts of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Courts give 28 U.S.C. § 1291 a\\n“‘practical rather than a technical construction,’” and may therefore exercise jurisdiction\\nover “a ‘small class’ of collateral rulings that, although they do not end the litigation, are\\nappropriately deemed ‘final.’” Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S. at 106 (quoting Cohen v.\\nBeneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949)).\\n\\f United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n ____________\\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\\n\\n Pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, courts may review interlocutory orders\\nof the district court “that are conclusive, that resolve important questions separate from\\nthe merits, and that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in\\nthe underlying action.” Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S. at 106. The collateral order\\ndoctrine, however, does not apply to an interlocutory order denying a motion for leave\\nto amend a complaint, because such an order may be effectively reviewed in an appeal\\nfrom a final judgment. See, e.g., Bridges v. Dep’t of Maryland State Police, 441 F.3d\\n197, 206 (4th Cir. 2006) (“A denial of a motion to amend a complaint is not a final order,\\nnor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.”); Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of\\nSan Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Such orders, as a class, contemplate\\nfurther proceedings in the district court, and this court has previously held that review is\\navailable after the final judgment, into which they merge.”).\\n\\n Appellant also cites to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S.\\n201 (1848), for the broad principal that interlocutory orders affecting a party’s property\\nrights are immediately appealable. Insofar as Forgay presents a jurisdictional ground\\nindependent of the collateral order doctrine – a proposition this court has previously\\ndoubted, see Pigford v. Veneman, 369 F.3d 545, 547 (D.C. Cir. 2004) – Brown has not\\ndemonstrated that the order on appeal affected his property rights.\\n\\n Finally, the interlocutory appeal statute permits review of “[i]nterlocutory orders of\\nthe district courts of the United States . . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or\\ndissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a\\ndirect review may be had in the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The order on\\nappeal here, however, had no such effect; it denied appellant’s motion for leave to file\\nan amended complaint, and addressed his concern that his race discrimination claims\\nhad been improperly disallowed. It is\\n\\n FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for a preliminary injunction be dismissed\\nas moot.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Page 2\\n\\f United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n ____________\\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\\n\\n The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven\\ndays after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en\\nbanc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.\\n\\n Per Curiam\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR THE COURT:\\n Mark J. Langer, Clerk\\n\\n BY: /s/\\n\\n Ken Meadows\\n Deputy Clerk\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Page 3\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3455,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4641199,"string":"4,641,199"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Randy Brown v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (ORDER)"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-17"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-7174"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"BEFORE: Rogers, Griffith, and Katsas, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the November 29, 2018 order to show cause why this\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PER CURIAM\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n ____________\\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\\n 1:14-cv-02031-ABJ\\n Filed On: July 17, 2019\\nRandy Brown,\\n\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\nJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.,\\n\\n Appellees\\n\\n BEFORE: Rogers, Griffith, and Katsas, Circuit Judges\\n\\n ORDER\\n\\n Upon consideration of the November 29, 2018 order to show cause why this\\nappeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, appellant’s brief and the\\nsupplements thereto, which the court construes as a response to the order to show\\ncause, appellee’s responses, and appellant’s reply; and the motion for a preliminary\\ninjunction, and the response thereto, it is\\n\\n ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is\\n\\n FURTHER ORDERED that this appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.\\nAppellant has not demonstrated that either the collateral order doctrine, see Mohawk\\nIndustries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009), or the interlocutory appeal\\nstatute, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), applies to the only order on appeal in this case: the district\\ncourt’s interlocutory November 6, 2018 minute order denying appellant’s motion to\\namend his complaint and his request to reconsider the court’s alleged “refusal to review\\nplaintiff’s pleadings in toto.”\\n\\n This court has jurisdiction over “appeals from all final decisions of the district\\ncourts of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Courts give 28 U.S.C. § 1291 a\\n“‘practical rather than a technical construction,’” and may therefore exercise jurisdiction\\nover “a ‘small class’ of collateral rulings that, although they do not end the litigation, are\\nappropriately deemed ‘final.’” Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S. at 106 (quoting Cohen v.\\nBeneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949)).\\n\\f United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n ____________\\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\\n\\n Pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, courts may review interlocutory orders\\nof the district court “that are conclusive, that resolve important questions separate from\\nthe merits, and that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in\\nthe underlying action.” Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S. at 106. The collateral order\\ndoctrine, however, does not apply to an interlocutory order denying a motion for leave\\nto amend a complaint, because such an order may be effectively reviewed in an appeal\\nfrom a final judgment. See, e.g., Bridges v. Dep’t of Maryland State Police, 441 F.3d\\n197, 206 (4th Cir. 2006) (“A denial of a motion to amend a complaint is not a final order,\\nnor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.”); Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of\\nSan Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Such orders, as a class, contemplate\\nfurther proceedings in the district court, and this court has previously held that review is\\navailable after the final judgment, into which they merge.”).\\n\\n Appellant also cites to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S.\\n201 (1848), for the broad principle that interlocutory orders affecting a party’s property\\nrights are immediately appealable. Insofar as Forgay presents a jurisdictional ground\\nindependent of the collateral order doctrine – a proposition this court has previously\\ndoubted, see Pigford v. Veneman, 369 F.3d 545, 547 (D.C. Cir. 2004) – Brown has not\\ndemonstrated that the order on appeal affected his property rights.\\n\\n Finally, the interlocutory appeal statute permits review of “[i]nterlocutory orders of\\nthe district courts of the United States . . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or\\ndissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a\\ndirect review may be had in the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The order on\\nappeal here, however, had no such effect; it denied appellant’s motion for leave to file\\nan amended complaint, and addressed his concern that his race discrimination claims\\nhad been improperly disallowed. It is\\n\\n FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for a preliminary injunction be dismissed\\nas moot.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Page 2\\n\\f United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n ____________\\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\\n\\n The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven\\ndays after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en\\nbanc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.\\n\\n Per Curiam\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR THE COURT:\\n Mark J. Langer, Clerk\\n\\n BY: /s/\\n\\n Ken Meadows\\n Deputy Clerk\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Page 3\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4418452/\", \"author_raw\": \"PER CURIAM\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROGERS"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"GRIFFITH"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"KATSAS"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641199/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Randy Brown v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (ORDER)\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-17\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n ____________\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\n 1:14-cv-02031-ABJ\n Filed On: July 17, 2019\nRandy Brown,\n\n Appellant\n\n v.\n\nJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.,\n\n Appellees\n\n BEFORE: Rogers, Griffith, and Katsas, Circuit Judges\n\n ORDER\n\n Upon consideration of the November 29, 2018 order to show cause why this\nappeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, appellant’s brief and the\nsupplements thereto, which the court construes as a response to the order to show\ncause, appellee’s responses, and appellant’s reply; and the motion for a preliminary\ninjunction, and the response thereto, it is\n\n ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is\n\n FURTHER ORDERED that this appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.\nAppellant has not demonstrated that either the collateral order doctrine, see Mohawk\nIndustries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009), or the interlocutory appeal\nstatute, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), applies to the only order on appeal in this case: the district\ncourt’s interlocutory November 6, 2018 minute order denying appellant’s motion to\namend his complaint and his request to reconsider the court’s alleged “refusal to review\nplaintiff’s pleadings in toto.”\n\n This court has jurisdiction over “appeals from all final decisions of the district\ncourts of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Courts give 28 U.S.C. § 1291 a\n“‘practical rather than a technical construction,’” and may therefore exercise jurisdiction\nover “a ‘small class’ of collateral rulings that, although they do not end the litigation, are\nappropriately deemed ‘final.’” Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S. at 106 (quoting Cohen v.\nBeneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949)).\n\f United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n ____________\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\n\n Pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, courts may review interlocutory orders\nof the district court “that are conclusive, that resolve important questions separate from\nthe merits, and that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in\nthe underlying action.” Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S. at 106. The collateral order\ndoctrine, however, does not apply to an interlocutory order denying a motion for leave\nto amend a complaint, because such an order may be effectively reviewed in an appeal\nfrom a final judgment. See, e.g., Bridges v. Dep’t of Maryland State Police, 441 F.3d\n197, 206 (4th Cir. 2006) (“A denial of a motion to amend a complaint is not a final order,\nnor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.”); Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of\nSan Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Such orders, as a class, contemplate\nfurther proceedings in the district court, and this court has previously held that review is\navailable after the final judgment, into which they merge.”).\n\n Appellant also cites to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S.\n201 (1848), for the broad principle that interlocutory orders affecting a party’s property\nrights are immediately appealable. Insofar as Forgay presents a jurisdictional ground\nindependent of the collateral order doctrine – a proposition this court has previously\ndoubted, see Pigford v. Veneman, 369 F.3d 545, 547 (D.C. Cir. 2004) – Brown has not\ndemonstrated that the order on appeal affected his property rights.\n\n Finally, the interlocutory appeal statute permits review of “[i]nterlocutory orders of\nthe district courts of the United States . . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or\ndissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a\ndirect review may be had in the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The order on\nappeal here, however, had no such effect; it denied appellant’s motion for leave to file\nan amended complaint, and addressed his concern that his race discrimination claims\nhad been improperly disallowed. It is\n\n FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for a preliminary injunction be dismissed\nas moot.\n\n\n\n\n Page 2\n\f United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n ____________\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\n\n The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven\ndays after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en\nbanc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.\n\n Per Curiam\n\n\n\n FOR THE COURT:\n Mark J. Langer, Clerk\n\n BY: /s/\n\n Ken Meadows\n Deputy Clerk\n\n\n\n\n Page 3\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Randy Brown v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (ORDER)\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-17\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n ____________\\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\\n 1:14-cv-02031-ABJ\\n Filed On: July 17, 2019\\nRandy Brown,\\n\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\nJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.,\\n\\n Appellees\\n\\n BEFORE: Rogers, Griffith, and Katsas, Circuit Judges\\n\\n ORDER\\n\\n Upon consideration of the November 29, 2018 order to show cause why this\\nappeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, appellant’s brief and the\\nsupplements thereto, which the court construes as a response to the order to show\\ncause, appellee’s responses, and appellant’s reply; and the motion for a preliminary\\ninjunction, and the response thereto, it is\\n\\n ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is\\n\\n FURTHER ORDERED that this appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.\\nAppellant has not demonstrated that either the collateral order doctrine, see Mohawk\\nIndustries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009), or the interlocutory appeal\\nstatute, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), applies to the only order on appeal in this case: the district\\ncourt’s interlocutory November 6, 2018 minute order denying appellant’s motion to\\namend his complaint and his request to reconsider the court’s alleged “refusal to review\\nplaintiff’s pleadings in toto.”\\n\\n This court has jurisdiction over “appeals from all final decisions of the district\\ncourts of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Courts give 28 U.S.C. § 1291 a\\n“‘practical rather than a technical construction,’” and may therefore exercise jurisdiction\\nover “a ‘small class’ of collateral rulings that, although they do not end the litigation, are\\nappropriately deemed ‘final.’” Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S. at 106 (quoting Cohen v.\\nBeneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949)).\\n\\f United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n ____________\\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\\n\\n Pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, courts may review interlocutory orders\\nof the district court “that are conclusive, that resolve important questions separate from\\nthe merits, and that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in\\nthe underlying action.” Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S. at 106. The collateral order\\ndoctrine, however, does not apply to an interlocutory order denying a motion for leave\\nto amend a complaint, because such an order may be effectively reviewed in an appeal\\nfrom a final judgment. See, e.g., Bridges v. Dep’t of Maryland State Police, 441 F.3d\\n197, 206 (4th Cir. 2006) (“A denial of a motion to amend a complaint is not a final order,\\nnor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.”); Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of\\nSan Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Such orders, as a class, contemplate\\nfurther proceedings in the district court, and this court has previously held that review is\\navailable after the final judgment, into which they merge.”).\\n\\n Appellant also cites to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S.\\n201 (1848), for the broad principle that interlocutory orders affecting a party’s property\\nrights are immediately appealable. Insofar as Forgay presents a jurisdictional ground\\nindependent of the collateral order doctrine – a proposition this court has previously\\ndoubted, see Pigford v. Veneman, 369 F.3d 545, 547 (D.C. Cir. 2004) – Brown has not\\ndemonstrated that the order on appeal affected his property rights.\\n\\n Finally, the interlocutory appeal statute permits review of “[i]nterlocutory orders of\\nthe district courts of the United States . . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or\\ndissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a\\ndirect review may be had in the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The order on\\nappeal here, however, had no such effect; it denied appellant’s motion for leave to file\\nan amended complaint, and addressed his concern that his race discrimination claims\\nhad been improperly disallowed. It is\\n\\n FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for a preliminary injunction be dismissed\\nas moot.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Page 2\\n\\f United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n ____________\\nNo. 18-7174 September Term, 2018\\n\\n The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven\\ndays after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en\\nbanc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.\\n\\n Per Curiam\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR THE COURT:\\n Mark J. Langer, Clerk\\n\\n BY: /s/\\n\\n Ken Meadows\\n Deputy Clerk\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Page 3\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3456,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":7336765,"string":"7,336,765"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Cause of Action Inst. v. Internal Revenue Serv."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-17"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"No. 16-cv-2354 (KBJ)"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Jackson\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254685/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"NO_JUDGES"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336765/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-17\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-17\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3457,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":7336932,"string":"7,336,932"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Barak CHACOTY v. Mike POMPEO, U.S. Secretary of State"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Chacoty v. Pompeo"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-17"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"Civil Action No. 14-764 (RDM)"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Moss\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254852/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MOSS"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MOSS"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336932/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Barak CHACOTY v. Mike POMPEO, U.S. Secretary of State\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-17\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Barak CHACOTY v. Mike POMPEO, U.S. Secretary of State\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-17\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3458,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":7336496,"string":"7,336,496"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"John E. HORSEY v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Horsey v. U.S. Dep't of State"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-18"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"No. 1:14-cv-1568 (KBJ)"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Jackson\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254416/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"NO_JUDGES"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336496/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: John E. HORSEY v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-18\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: John E. HORSEY v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-18\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3459,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":7336762,"string":"7,336,762"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Cheryl Renee SAID v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Said v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-18"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"Civil Action No. 15-1289 (RBW)"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Walton\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254682/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WALTON"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"WALTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336762/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Cheryl Renee SAID v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-18\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Cheryl Renee SAID v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-18\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3460,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4641193,"string":"4,641,193"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Velma OLU-COLE, Parent and Next Friend of M.K., Appellant v. E.L. HAYNES PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL, Appellee"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Velma Olu-Cole v. E.L. Haynes Public Charter Sc"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-19"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-7028"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Rogers, Millett, Ginsburg\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued November 9, 2018 Decided July 19, 2019\\n\\n No. 18-7028\\n\\n VELMA OLU-COLE, PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND OF M.K.,\\n APPELLANT\\n\\n v.\\n\\n E.L. HAYNES PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL,\\n APPELLEE\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the District of Columbia\\n (No. 1:18-cv-00238)\\n\\n\\n Stevie Nabors argued the cause and filed the briefs for\\nappellant.\\n\\n Lauren E. Baum argued the cause and filed the brief for\\nappellee.\\n\\n Before: ROGERS and MILLETT, Circuit Judges, and\\nGINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge.\\n\\nOpinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT.\\n\\n MILLETT, Circuit Judge: The Individuals with\\nDisabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., creates a\\npowerful statutory presumption in favor of maintaining the\\n\\f 2\\ncurrent classroom placement of a student with a disability when\\nthe school seeks to change his placement over a parent’s\\nobjections. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j). That presumption is\\ncommonly known as the “stay put” requirement. When a\\nchild with a disability has been suspended from school, stay put\\nheavily favors promptly returning the child to the classroom.\\nSee id. § 1415(k). As an adjunct to stay put, the statute also\\nentitles students with disabilities to “appropriate” remedies like\\ncompensatory education to make up for any academic\\nshortfalls that occur during the time they are kept out of school.\\nSee id. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii); Boose v. District of Columbia, 786\\nF.3d 1054, 1056 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The local educational\\nagency must overcome a heavy evidentiary burden to displace\\nthe default rule that the child will stay put.\\n\\n The district court in this case wrongly denied a stay-put\\ninjunction because it placed the burden of proof on the student\\nrather than the local educational agency. And that error has\\ncontinuing adverse consequences for the student’s claim for\\ncompensatory education. For those reasons, we reverse and\\nremand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\n I\\n\\n The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”)\\noffers federal funding to States, the District of Columbia, and\\nother United States territories on the condition that they\\nprovide children with disabilities a “free appropriate public\\neducation” in the “least restrictive environment.” 20 U.S.C.\\n§ 1412(a)(1), (a)(5); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114–117; see generally\\nFry v. Napoleon Community Sch., 137 S. Ct. 743, 748–749\\n(2017). One of the statute’s key goals is to integrate children\\nwith and without disabilities “[t]o the maximum extent\\nappropriate.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A).\\n\\f 3\\n The “primary vehicle” for securing an appropriate public\\neducation is the child’s “individualized education program,”\\nwhich is commonly referred to as an “IEP.” Honig v. Doe,\\n484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988); see 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d). The “IEP\\nTeam”—which includes school officials, teachers, and\\nparents—crafts the educational plan aimed at “meet[ing] the\\nchild’s needs” and “enabl[ing] the child to be involved in and\\nmake progress in the general educational curriculum[.]” 20\\nU.S.C. § 1414 (d)(1)(A)(i)(II)(aa), (d)(1)(B). The statute\\ndesignates the “local educational agency” as an integral\\nmember of the IEP Team. Id. § 1414(d)(1)(B)(iv); id.\\n§ 1401(19) (defining a local educational agency as “a public\\nboard of education or other public authority legally constituted\\n* * * for either administrative control or direction of, or to\\nperform a service function for, public elementary schools or\\nsecondary schools”). That local educational agency is\\nresponsible for ensuring that the IEP Team both “reviews the\\nchild’s IEP * * * to determine whether [his or her] annual goals\\n* * * are being achieved[,] and [also] revises the IEP as\\nappropriate to address” a lack of progress, the results of\\nupdated evaluations or tests, and any “anticipated needs.” Id.\\n§ 1414(d)(4)(A). Certain public charter schools, including\\nE.L. Haynes Public Charter School (“School”), operate as their\\nown local educational agency for purposes of the IDEA. 34\\nC.F.R. §§ 300.209, 300.705(a).\\n\\n It should come as no surprise that parents and school\\nofficials sometimes disagree over a child’s placement or the\\ndetails of an IEP. The IDEA provides formal dispute-\\nresolution procedures to address those conflicts. To start,\\nparents or local educational agencies may file a “due process\\ncomplaint” to challenge the current IEP or its implementation.\\nSee, e.g., 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6), (c)(2). That filing triggers\\na preliminary meeting between the parties, id.\\n\\f 4\\n§ 1415(f)(1)(B)(i), as well as the option of mediation, id.\\n§ 1415(e).\\n\\n Where impasse persists, the case proceeds to an\\nadministrative hearing—commonly referred to as a “due\\nprocess” hearing, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(A)—before a\\n“hearing officer” who is not “involved in the education or care\\nof the child,” id. § 1415(f)(3)(A). The substantive touchstone\\nfor that proceeding is always “whether the child [has] received\\na free appropriate public education.” Id. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i).\\nIn the District of Columbia, the Office of the State\\nSuperintendent for Education is the entity that administers the\\ndue process hearings. See D.C. Code Ann. § 38-2572.02.\\n\\n At the end of that administrative process, any party still\\naggrieved may bring a civil action in federal district court to\\nchallenge the final administrative determination. 20 U.S.C.\\n§ 1415(i)(2)(A). Courts may “grant such relief as [they]\\ndetermine[] is appropriate” under the law. Id.\\n§ 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii).\\n\\n Recognizing that this dispute-resolution process can take\\ntime, and that parties will continue to disagree in the interim,\\nthe IDEA’s “stay put” provision strikes the balance heavily in\\nfavor of maintaining the educational status quo for students\\nwith disabilities until proceedings have concluded. As\\nrelevant here, the IDEA mandates:\\n\\n Except as provided in subsection (k)(4), during\\n the pendency of any proceedings conducted\\n pursuant to this section, unless the State or local\\n educational agency and the parents otherwise\\n agree, the child shall remain in the then-current\\n educational placement of the child[.]\\n\\f 5\\n20 U.S.C. § 1415(j). To put it more simply, “all handicapped\\nchildren, regardless of whether their case is meritorious or not,\\nare to remain in their current educational placement until the\\ndispute with regard to their placement is ultimately resolved.”\\nMackey v. Board of Educ. for Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 386\\nF.3d 158, 161 (2d Cir. 2004) (emphasis omitted) (quoting\\nSusquenita Sch. Dist. v. Raelee S., 96 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir.\\n1996)).\\n\\n The purpose of the stay-put command is to “strip schools\\nof the unilateral authority they * * * traditionally employed to\\nexclude disabled students * * * from school.” Honig, 484\\nU.S. at 323 (emphasis in original) (interpreting predecessor\\nprovision codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(3) (1988)). And\\nthe Supreme Court has held that stay put applies “particularly\\n[to] emotionally disturbed students[.]” Id.\\n\\n But the stay-put mandate is not without limits. The\\nprovision carves out an express exception for proceedings\\n“provided [for] in subsection (k)(4),” which governs\\ndisciplinary proceedings related to certain forms of student\\nmisconduct. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); see id. § 1415(k)(4).\\nSubsection (k)—titled “Placement in alternative educational\\nsetting”—gives schools limited authority to unilaterally\\nsuspend students with disabilities for such misconduct. See\\n20 U.S.C. § 1415(k). When that happens, the statute\\nauthorizes the school to place the student in an “appropriate\\ninterim alternative educational setting, another setting, or\\nsuspension, for not more than 10 school days (to the extent such\\nalternatives are applied to children without disabilities).” Id.\\n§ 1415(k)(1)(B). That placement decision is to be made on a\\n“case-by-case basis,” taking into account each child’s “unique\\ncircumstances.” Id. § 1415(k)(1)(A).\\n\\f 6\\n Within the statutorily prescribed ten-day window, the\\nschool must determine whether the conduct was a\\n“manifestation of the child’s disability.” 20 U.S.C.\\n§ 1415(k)(1)(E)(ii). If it was, then the default rule is that the\\nchild must be returned “to the placement from which [he or\\nshe] was removed.” Id. § 1415(k)(1)(F)(iii); 34 C.F.R.\\n§ 300.530(f)(2). If, on the other hand, the misconduct was not\\ntied to the student’s disability, then the school can pursue the\\nsame disciplinary procedures that “would be applied\\nto children without disabilities[.]” 20 U.S.C.\\n§ 1415(k)(1)(C).\\n\\n Even for disability-related misconduct, the presumption\\nfavoring return of the student to school gives way when the\\nmisconduct involves weapons, drugs, or—as relevant here—\\nthe infliction of “serious bodily injury upon another.” 20\\nU.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(G); id. § 1415(k)(7) (incorporating 18\\nU.S.C. § 1365(h)(3)’s definition of “serious bodily injury”).\\nIn those “special circumstances,” the IDEA authorizes the\\nschool to “remove [the] student to an interim alternative\\neducational setting for not more than 45 school days.” Id.\\n§ 1415(k)(1)(G).\\n\\n When misconduct covered by Section 1415(k) occurs,\\nparents may challenge either the “placement [or] manifestation\\ndetermination[s]” by requesting a due process hearing. 20\\nU.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(A). Local educational agencies may do\\nthe same if they “believe[] that maintaining the current\\nplacement of the child is substantially likely to result in injury\\nto the child or to others[.]” Id.; see id. § 1415(f)(1)(A)\\n(hearing procedures apply equally to complaints “under\\nsubsection (b)(6) or (k)”).\\n\\f 7\\n Whenever a parent or local educational agency pursues\\nthat hearing process, Subsection (k)(4) displaces the general\\nstay-put requirement. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j). Instead,\\n\\n (A) the child shall remain in the interim\\n alternative educational setting pending the\\n decision of the hearing officer or until the\\n expiration of the time period provided for in\\n paragraph (1)(C) [which concerns procedures\\n for misconduct unrelated to a child’s disability,]\\n whichever occurs first, unless the parent and the\\n State or local educational agency agree\\n otherwise; and\\n\\n (B) the State or local educational agency shall\\n arrange for an expedited hearing, which shall\\n occur within 20 school days of the date the\\n hearing is requested and shall result in a\\n determination within 10 school days after the\\n hearing.\\nId. § 1415(k)(4).\\n\\n In other words, the child can be required to remain in the\\nalternative interim setting until either (i) the hearing officer\\ndecides the expedited appeal (within thirty days of when the\\ncomplaint is filed), or (ii) the suspension period that “would\\n[have] be[en] applied to children without disabilities” has\\nlapsed, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(C). For cases that involve\\nmisconduct involving weapons, drugs, or the infliction of\\nserious bodily injury, the governing regulations cap the interim\\nplacement at the 45-day suspension period. See 34 C.F.R.\\n§ 300.533 (explaining that “the child must remain in the\\ninterim alternative educational setting pending the decision of\\nthe hearing officer or until the expiration of the time period\\nspecified in § 300.530(c) or (g), whichever occurs first”)\\n\\f 8\\n(emphasis added); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(g) (permitting schools\\nto “remove a student to an interim alternative educational\\nsetting for not more than 45 days” if the child “[h]as inflicted\\nserious bodily injury upon another person while at school”).\\nUpon the request of a local educational agency, the hearing\\nofficer has the limited authority to extend the interim\\nplacement by “not more than 45 school days if [she] determines\\nthat maintaining the current placement * * * is substantially\\nlikely to result in injury to the child or to others.” 20 U.S.C.\\n§ 1415(k)(3)(B)(ii)(II).\\n\\n II\\n\\n M.K. is a high-school student with a significant emotional\\ndisability that qualifies him for a specialized education and\\nrelated services under the IDEA. On November 6, 2017,\\nM.K. assaulted another student at the School, knocking him to\\nthe ground and punching him in the head repeatedly. That\\nstudent suffered a concussion. The School determined that\\nthe behavior was “a manifestation of [M.K.’s] disability,” 20\\nU.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E), but still chose to suspend him for the\\nstatutory maximum of 45 days, pursuant to § 1415(k)(1)(G).\\nDuring the suspension, M.K. received educational services in\\nan isolated setting.\\n\\n On December 4, the School informed M.K.’s mother,\\nVelma Olu-Cole, that it would seek a recommendation from\\nthe District of Columbia’s Office of the State Superintendent\\nfor Education regarding whether M.K should be permanently\\ntransferred to a different school. On January 11, 2018, the\\nSuperintendent declined to recommend transfer.\\n\\n On January 17, the School informed Olu-Cole that it\\nwould initiate a due process hearing to determine whether a\\npermanent change in placement would be appropriate. The\\n\\f 9\\nSchool sought Olu-Cole’s consent to extend M.K.’s interim\\nplacement during the hearing process, but she refused. Olu-\\nCole explained that M.K. had previously been receiving more\\nthan 98 percent of his instruction in a general educational\\nsetting, and she worried he would struggle further if subjected\\nto continued education “in isolation” from his peers. J.A. 40.\\n\\n On January 24, M.K. attempted to return to the School, but\\nhe was refused readmission. The next day, the School\\nrequested a due process hearing on whether (i) M.K. should be\\ntransferred to a non-public, special-education day school; and\\n(ii) his interim placement could continue until that process was\\ncompleted, see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(B)(ii)(II). That\\nhearing was scheduled for February 26, 2018, with a decision\\nexpected in early March, see generally id. § 1415(k)(4)(B).\\n\\n Meanwhile, on January 31, 2018, M.K.’s suspension\\nreached the IDEA’s 45-day cap. The next day, Olu-Cole filed\\na complaint and motions for a temporary restraining order and\\na preliminary injunction to compel M.K.’s reinstatement under\\nthe stay-put provision. 1 Her complaint asked the court to\\ndeclare a violation of stay put, to order the School to readmit\\nM.K., and to grant emergency injunctive and declaratory relief.\\nThe memoranda in support of those motions also asked for an\\naccompanying award of “compensatory education for any\\nviolations of stay put.” J.A. 31, 49.\\n\\n The district court denied a temporary restraining order on\\n\\n 1\\n Olu-Cole sought to compel M.K.’s reinstatement under\\nSection 1415(j) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.518, but those provisions are\\ninapplicable because the School sought M.K.’s continued exclusion\\npursuant to Section 1415(k)(3). In any event, the district court\\ncorrectly applied the operative provisions in Section 1415(k) and 34\\nC.F.R. § 300.533. See Olu-Cole v. E.L. Haynes Pub. Charter Sch.,\\n292 F. Supp. 3d 413, 418 (D.D.C. 2019).\\n\\f 10\\nFebruary 2, and denied a preliminary injunction on February\\n23. Olu-Cole v. E.L. Haynes Pub. Charter Sch., 292 F. Supp.\\n3d 413, 421 (D.D.C. 2019). In its opinion denying the\\npreliminary injunction, the court found that Olu-Cole was\\nlikely to succeed on the merits because she had met the\\nestablished two-part test for stay put by showing that\\n(i) proceedings under the IDEA were “pending,” and (ii) the\\nSchool sought a change in M.K.’s “then-current educational\\nplacement.” Id. at 417–419. The district court nonetheless\\ndenied the motion because the hearing officer was expected to\\nrule in two weeks, and Olu-Cole had not demonstrated that\\nM.K. was likely to suffer irreparable harm from extending the\\nsuspension until the officer ruled. Id. at 420. The district\\ncourt also accepted the School’s argument that M.K.’s return\\nto school “would raise an unacceptably significant potential of\\ninjury to other interested parties.” Id. Given the\\n“significant public interest in maintaining school safety[,]” the\\ndistrict court denied the motion. Id.\\n As it turns out, the School failed to keep the district court\\nup to date on changes in its position. The day before the court\\nissued its decision, the School filed with the hearing officer a\\nmotion to withdraw its administrative due process complaint\\nand notified Olu-Cole that it was ready to discuss M.K.’s\\nreadmission. Unapprised of the School’s change of heart, the\\ndistrict court denied M.K.’s entitlement to stay put because of\\n“school safety.” Olu-Cole, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 420.\\n\\n Olu-Cole appealed the next business day. Within two\\ndays, the School readmitted M.K., and the hearing officer\\ndismissed the School’s administrative complaint with\\nprejudice.\\n\\n III\\n\\f 11\\n Ordinarily, the party seeking a preliminary injunction must\\nmake a “clear showing” that she is likely to succeed on the\\nmerits; she will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of\\npreliminary relief; the “balance of equities” tips in her favor;\\nand an injunction would serve the public interest. Winter v.\\nNatural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 22 (2008);\\naccord Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1038 (D.C. Cir.\\n2014).\\n\\n The IDEA’s stay-put provision turns that traditional\\nframework on its head. Section 1415(j) effectively provides\\nfor an automatic statutory injunction upon a two-factor\\nshowing that (i) an administrative due process proceeding is\\n“pend[ing],” and (ii) the local educational agency is attempting\\nto alter the student’s “then-current educational placement.”\\n20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); see Casey K. ex rel. Norman K. v. Saint\\nAnne Community High Sch. Dist. No. 302, 400 F.3d 508, 511\\n(7th Cir. 2005) (Posner, J.) (comparing stay-put injunction to\\nan automatic stay in a bankruptcy case); Wagner v. Board of\\nEduc. of Montgomery Cty., 335 F.3d 297, 301 (4th Cir. 2003)\\n(“automatic” injunction); John T. ex rel. Paul T. v. Delaware\\nCty. Intermediate Unit, 318 F.3d 545, 556 (3d Cir. 2003)\\n(same); Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 78 F.3d 859, 864 (3d\\nCir. 1996) (stay put “functions, in essence as an automatic\\npreliminary injunction”); Light v. Parkway C-2 Sch. Dist., 41\\nF.3d 1223, 1227 (8th Cir. 1994) (same).\\n\\n Because the IDEA deems the exclusion from appropriate\\npublic education itself to be a significant harm, once those two\\nstatutory factors are established, the student need not otherwise\\n“show[] irreparable harm.” Andersen ex rel. Andersen v.\\nDistrict of Columbia, 877 F.2d 1018, 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1989)\\n(discussing predecessor statute); accord Casey K., 400 F.3d at\\n511.\\n\\f 12\\n The Supreme Court has said, though, that stay put does not\\ncompletely displace the “equitable powers of district courts\\nsuch that they cannot, in appropriate cases, temporarily enjoin\\na dangerous disabled child from attending school[,]” and that\\ncourts may tailor the order to provide “appropriate” relief.\\nHonig, 484 U.S. at 327 (discussing 20 U.S.C.\\n§ 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii)’s identically worded antecedent).\\nInstead, stay put “effectively creates a presumption in favor of\\nthe child’s current educational placement which school\\nofficials can overcome only by showing that maintaining the\\nchild in his or her current placement is substantially likely to\\nresult in injury either to himself or herself, or to others.” Id.\\nat 328. That means it is the school, and not the parent, that\\nmust invoke the court’s equitable power to jam the “automatic”\\nstatutory trigger for injunctive relief. And so it is the school,\\nand not the parent, that bears the heavy burden of securing\\npreliminary relief. See id.; Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.\\n\\n To be sure, as a formal matter, Olu-Cole, rather than the\\nSchool, was the one that filed a motion for preliminary\\ninjunctive relief in this case. But, as Honig held, the IDEA\\nmade the grant of that injunction virtually automatic once Olu-\\nCole made the two-factor showing that a due process hearing\\nwas pending and that the School sought to undo an existing\\nplacement. After that, “school officials [could not] escape the\\npresumptive effect of the stay-put provision simply by\\nviolating it and forcing parents to petition for relief.” Honig,\\n484 U.S. at 328 n.10. Instead, even though the parents are the\\nones “seeking injunctive relief for a violation of [Section]\\n1415[(j)], the burden rests with the school district to\\ndemonstrate that the educational status quo must be altered.”\\nId.\\n\\n Taking it down to brass tacks, once Olu-Cole’s motion for\\na preliminary injunction demonstrated that the two statutorily\\n\\f 13\\nrequired factors were met, there was a paradigm shift. Stay\\nput locked in M.K.’s educational status quo, and the party that\\nneeded injunctive relief was the School seeking to derail the\\nstatute’s ordinary operation. See Board of Educ. of\\nCommunity High Sch. Dist. No. 218 v. Illinois State Bd. of\\nEduc., 103 F.3d 545, 548–550 (7th Cir. 1996) (motion for a\\npreliminary “injunction was an effort to maintain the status\\nquo, and thus within the purview of the stay-put provision”);\\nDrinker, 78 F.3d at 864 (treating preliminary injunction as a\\nvehicle to enforce “automatic” stay-put injunction); Joshua A.\\nv. Rocklin Unified Sch. Dist., 559 F.3d 1036, 1037 (9th Cir.\\n2009) (“A motion for stay put functions as an ‘automatic’\\npreliminary injunction, meaning that the moving party need not\\nshow the traditionally required factors (e.g., irreparable harm)\\nin order to obtain preliminary relief.”) (citation omitted); cf.\\nWagner, 335 F.3d at 302; Light, 41 F.3d at 1227; Doe v.\\nBrookline Sch. Comm., 722 F.2d 910, 917 (1st Cir. 1983).\\n\\n This has long been the understanding of the district courts\\nin this circuit. See, e.g., Z.B. v. District of Columbia, 292 F.\\nSupp. 3d 300, 304 (D.D.C. 2018); G.B. v. District of Columbia,\\n78 F. Supp. 3d 109, 113 (D.D.C. 2015); Wimbish v. District of\\nColumbia, 153 F. Supp. 3d. 4, 10 (D.D.C. 2015); Eley v.\\nDistrict of Columbia, 47 F. Supp. 3d 1, 19 (D.D.C. 2014);\\nD.K. ex rel. Klein v. District of Columbia, 962 F. Supp. 2d 227,\\n232 (D.D.C. 2013); District of Columbia v. Vinyard, 901 F.\\nSupp. 2d 77, 84 (D.D.C. 2012); Laster v. District of Columbia,\\n439 F. Supp. 2d 93, 98 (D.D.C. 2006); Saleh v. District of\\nColumbia, 660 F. Supp. 212, 214 (D.D.C. 1987). And we\\nagree. That is the framework the district court should have\\napplied in this case.\\n\\n But it did not. Olu-Cole is unquestionably correct that the\\ndistrict court erred in putting the burden of proof on her to\\n\\f 14\\nprove that M.K. would be irreparably harmed by a denial of the\\nstay-put injunction.\\n\\n The district court began, as it should have, by asking the\\nnarrow merits question whether M.K. had established stay\\nput’s two conditions precedent—that is, that due process\\nproceedings were then pending, and that the school was\\nattempting to deviate from M.K.’s “then-current” placement.\\nOlu-Cole, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 418–419. The district court\\nfound those two conditions satisfied. So far, so good.\\n\\n At that point, Olu-Cole was presumptively entitled to have\\nM.K. stay put while the School sought an order allowing it to\\nmove him to a new location. And the burden shifted to the\\nSchool to meet the heavy burden of overcoming that\\npresumption. See Honig, 484 U.S. at 328; Wagner, 335 F.3d\\nat 302; Drinker, 78 F.3d at 864; Brookline Sch., 722 F.2d at\\n917.\\n\\n That is where the district court veered off the tracks.\\nInstead of requiring the School to shoulder the difficult burden\\nof justifying its continued exclusion of M.K., the district court\\nput the burden on Olu-Cole to show that “M.K. would * * *\\nsuffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.” Olu-\\nCole, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 420. That was straightforward legal\\nerror.\\n\\n The School does not seriously attempt to defend the\\ndistrict court’s erroneous burden shifting. Instead, the School\\ntries to repackage the district court’s decision as just making\\nthe right findings under the wrong prong. School Br. 38–41.\\nIn finding that M.K.’s readmission posed an “unacceptably\\nsignificant potential of injury to other interested parties,” Olu-\\nCole, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 420, the School argues, the district\\ncourt necessarily would have concluded that the School met its\\n\\f 15\\ntask of demonstrating irreparable harm from M.K.’s\\nreadmission. School Br. 41.\\n\\n Not so. This court has said time and again that the degree\\nof proof required for “irreparable harm” is “high,” and that a\\nfailure to surmount it provides “grounds for refusing to issue a\\npreliminary injunction, even if the other three factors entering\\nthe calculus merit such relief.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel\\nChurches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006); cf.\\nNken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (irreparable injury\\nand likelihood of success are the two “most critical” showings\\nrequired to obtain a stay). The injury “must be both certain\\nand great; it must be actual and not theoretical [and] * * * of\\nsuch imminence that there is a ‘clear and present’ need for\\nequitable relief.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, 454\\nF.3d at 297 (quoting Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d\\n669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (per curiam)); Doe v. Mattis, 889\\nF.3d 745, 782 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (injury must be “certain,”\\n“great” and “actual”).\\n\\n No comparable burden accompanies the public-interest\\nfactors upon which the district court principally relied and in\\nwhich it housed its finding of “potential” harm. Olu-Cole, 292\\nF. Supp. 3d at 420. So, in concluding that M.K.’s return\\n“would raise an unacceptably significant potential of injury to\\nother interested parties,” id. (emphasis added), the district court\\ndid not find that the harm was “certain,” “great” and “actual.”\\nMattis, 889 F.3d at 782.\\n\\n It also must be remembered that the stay-put provision\\nreflects Congress’s considered judgment that children with\\ndisabilities are substantially harmed by and must be protected\\nagainst school policies of unilateral disruption and exclusion.\\nSee Honig, 484 U.S. at 308; Joshua A., 559 F.3d at 1040.\\nThat presumably is why the statutory stay-put scheme requires\\n\\f 16\\nno additional showing of harm by the individual student. Any\\njudicial decision to override that congressional judgment\\nwould be both “extraordinary and drastic,” and should be\\nwithheld “unless the [school]” carries its heavy burden “by a\\nclear showing” of irreparable harm. Mazurek v. Armstrong,\\n520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright,\\nArthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and\\nProcedure § 2948 (2d ed. 1995)). The district court’s\\ninversion—flipping that heavy burden to the parent—\\n“dilute[d] th[at] statutory framework” and the robust\\nprocedural protections it extends to children with disabilities.\\nSee Board of Educ. of Community High Sch., 103 F.3d at 550.\\n\\n That erroneous reordering of the burden of proof\\nnecessarily constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Koon v.\\nUnited States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996); accord Wagner, 335\\nF.3d at 301.\\n\\n The problems with the School’s position do not stop there.\\nIts insistence that the denial of stay put can be sustained on the\\nground that readmitting M.K. posed an unacceptably high\\nthreat to the safety of the school community stands in glaring\\ntension with its own independent decision to readmit M.K.,\\nwhich was made prior to the district court’s ruling. Had the\\ncourt been apprised of this reversal in the School’s position, it\\nwould seem untenable for it still to have found that M.K.’s\\nreadmission was “substantially likely to result in injury” to the\\nschool community. See Honig, 484 U.S. at 328 (emphasis\\nadded). The School cannot evade the evidentiary weight of its\\nown real-world behavior just by failing to alert the district court\\nto it.\\n\\n IV\\n\\f 17\\n The School separately argues that this appeal is moot as a\\nresult of M.K.’s readmission, combined with the dismissal with\\nprejudice of the School’s administrative due process complaint.\\nThat argument ignores that the wrongful denial of stay put not\\nonly delayed M.K.’s return to school, but altered his\\nentitlement to compensatory educational services, a claim that\\nremains live in this case.\\n\\n Mootness “ensures compliance with Article III’s case and\\ncontroversy requirement by ‘limit[ing] federal courts to\\ndeciding actual, ongoing controversies.’” Aref v. Lynch, 833\\nF.3d 242, 250 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting\\nAmerican Bar Ass’n v. FTC, 636 F.3d 641, 645 (D.C. Cir.\\n2011)). A plaintiff’s failure to satisfy that Article III\\nprerequisite deprives the federal court of jurisdiction to act in\\nthe case. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 95\\n(1998).\\n\\n Because this case involves a motion for preliminary\\nequitable relief, Article III requires that the parties retain “a\\nlegally cognizable interest in the determination of whether the\\npreliminary injunction was properly denied.” See Animal\\nLegal Def. Fund v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 363, 366 (D.C. Cir. 1995);\\naccord Pulphus v. Ayers, 909 F.3d 1148, 1152 (D.C. Cir.\\n2018). That is, would reversal either “affect the parties’\\nrights” or “have a more-than-speculative chance of affecting\\nthem in the future”? Aref, 833 F.3d at 250 (internal quotation\\nmarks omitted) (quoting American Bar Ass’n, 636 F.3d at 645);\\nsee Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013) (Mootness\\nobtains “only when it is impossible for a court to grant any\\neffectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.”) (citation\\nomitted).\\n\\n This case is not moot because M.K. retains a “concrete\\ninterest * * * in the outcome of the litigation,” and the district\\n\\f 18\\ncourt could still grant “effectual relief.” Chafin, 568 U.S. at\\n172. In holding that M.K. was not entitled to a stay-put\\ninjunction, the district court’s order had the dual effect of both\\n(i) empowering the School to continue excluding M.K. from its\\neducational services, and (ii) limiting M.K.’s claim to\\ncompensatory educational relief for the time of that extended\\nexclusion. Compensatory education is “education services\\ndesigned to make up for past deficiencies in a child’s program,”\\nBoose, 786 F.3d at 1056 (citation omitted), and to return a\\nstudent to the position he would have been in the absence of an\\nIDEA violation, B.D. v. District of Columbia, 817 F.3d 792,\\n798 (D.C. Cir. 2016).\\n\\n By holding that M.K. was not entitled to stay put, the\\ndistrict court foreclosed M.K.’s ability to obtain compensatory\\neducation for the (post-suspension) period of his exclusion\\nfrom school. To put it simply, if M.K. was not legally entitled\\nto be in school, his claim that he was entitled to classroom-\\nequivalent compensatory educational services would fail as\\nwell because there would be no predicate IDEA violation\\nwarranting compensatory education. See B.D., 817 F.3d at\\n798. That is why Olu-Cole’s request for a stay-put injunction\\nsought not just M.K.’s physical reentry into the classroom, but\\nalso the attendant eligibility for compensatory services for the\\nperiod for which he was wrongly excluded. Cf. M.R. v. Ridley\\nSch. Dist., 868 F.3d 218, 229–230 (3d Cir. 2017) (Section\\n1415(j) “gives rise to two concomitant rights” to stay put and\\nto compensatory education) (emphasis added); Doe v. East\\nLyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 456 (2d Cir. 2015) (“[W]hen\\nan educational agency has violated the stay-put provision,\\ncompensatory education may—and generally should—be\\nawarded to make up for any appreciable difference between the\\nfull value of stay-put services owed” and what was actually\\nprovided.).\\n\\f 19\\n In short, because the injury alleged went beyond the\\nongoing physical exclusion from school and included the\\neducational consequences of his delayed return, the School’s\\nbelated decision to readmit M.K. did not fully cure his injury,\\nand the consequences of the denial of stay put continue.\\n\\n It is true that, even if M.K. were not entitled to return to\\nschool after 45 days, Olu-Cole might still win compensatory\\neducation for any inadequacies in the alternative educational\\nplacement where he remained. But that award would not\\ncompensate M.K. for the effects of the School’s unlawful\\nexclusion. That is because determining what (if any)\\ncompensatory education is due is a comparative question.\\nCompensatory education seeks to restore a student to where the\\nIDEA required the student to be and to “undo the * * *\\naffirmative harm” resulting from the particular IDEA violation.\\nB.D., 817 F.3d at 798; see Boose, 786 F.3d at 1056. If M.K.\\nwas not eligible to return to school, then the sufficiency of his\\neducational services will be measured against the standard for\\nout-of-school education. If he were entitled to stay put, in-\\nschool education becomes the comparative baseline. See\\nOlu-Cole’s Reply Br. 20.\\n\\n So understood, the denial of a stay-put injunction vitiated\\nthe alleged stay-put violation and, along with it, any attendant\\nright to compensatory education to make up for a wrongful\\nexclusion under the IDEA. And because Olu-Cole has\\nidentified distinct and concrete consequences that continue to\\nrun from the district court’s stay-put denial, the case is not\\nmooted just by M.K.’s readmission. See Chafin, 568 U.S. at\\n172; McBryde v. Committee to Review Circuit Council\\nConduct & Disability Orders of Judicial Conference of U.S.,\\n264 F.3d 52, 57 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (no mootness where “injury\\nto reputation is alleged as a secondary effect of an otherwise\\nmoot action,” if “tangible, concrete effect remain[s] * * *\\n\\f 20\\nsusceptible to judicial correction”) (citation and quotation\\nmarks omitted); cf. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 8 (1998)\\n(case or controversy would exist even after a conviction is set\\naside if petitioner demonstrates that “concrete disadvantages\\n* * * were [actually] imposed as a matter of law”).\\n\\n Here, M.K.’s compensatory education request is not\\nmerely a “collateral consequence” of the underlying stay-put\\ndispute, Spencer, 523 U.S. at 8. It is part and parcel of it.\\nWhich presumably is why Olu-Cole appended the request for\\ncompensatory education to her motion for preliminary\\ninjunctive relief. Oral Arg. Tr. at 16 (Olu-Cole’s attorney\\nexplaining that stay put and compensatory education are\\n“inextricably intertwined”); see also M.R., 868 F.3d at 229–\\n230.2\\n\\n Lastly, the School challenges the predicate assumption\\nthat stay put applied at all in this case. In its view, 34 C.F.R.\\n§ 300.533—which limits the interim placement to the 45-day\\nperiod specified in § 300.530(g)—conflicts with the IDEA’s\\n\\n 2\\n On July 8, 2019, the School notified this Court that M.K. has\\nnow graduated from high school. That does not affect our mootness\\nanalysis because M.K. remains eligible for compensatory education.\\nSee Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist. No. 3, 31 F.3d 1489,\\n1496 (9th Cir. 1994) (reaching the merits of a compensatory\\neducation award for student who graduated from high school); Pihl\\nv. Massachusetts Dep’t of Educ., 9 F.3d 184, 189 (1st Cir. 1993)\\n(“[A] student who was deprived of services to which he was entitled\\nunder the IDEA has a right to a remedy, in the form of compensatory\\neducation, regardless of his eligibility for current or future services\\nunder the Act.”); Brett v. Goshen Community Sch. Corp., 161 F.\\nSupp. 2d 930, 943 (N.D. Ind. 2001) (same); cf. Zobrest v. Catalina\\nFoothills Sch. Dist., 509 U.S. 1, 4 n.3 (1993) (graduation did not\\nmoot parents’ reimbursement claim for the cost of a private\\ninterpreter hired to help their son graduate).\\n\\f 21\\nexpress directive that the child “remain in the interim\\nalternative educational setting” until the hearing officer issues\\nher decision, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4). School Br. 19–20.\\n\\n That position fails to read the statutory text as a whole.\\nFirst, Section 1415(k)(1)(G) explicitly limits a school’s\\nauthority to “remove a student to an interim alternative\\neducational setting for not more than 45 school days.”\\n(emphasis added). If a school could wait until the 45th day to\\nrequest a hearing, it could exclude a child for up to 75 days, in\\ndirect contravention of the “no more than 45 school days”\\nmandate, id. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4)(A).\\n\\n Second, Section 1415(k)(3)(B)(ii)(II) imposes a parallel\\nlimitation, allowing hearing officers only to “order a change in\\nplacement of a child with a disability to an appropriate interim\\nalternative educational setting for not more than 45 school\\ndays.” (emphasis added). The challenged regulation reads the\\nstatutory provisions together, consistent with the IDEA’s\\nexpedited 30-day hearing schedule. See Olu-Cole, 292 F.\\nSupp. 3d at 419 n.2 (noting that Section 1415(k)(4)\\n“contemplates a decision within 30 school days, well within the\\n45 days provided by [§ 1415(k)(1)(G)]”).\\n\\n *****\\n\\n Because the district court materially erred in its legal\\nanalysis of the stay-put motion and because the consequences\\nof that decision have continuing consequences for M.K.’s\\nclaim for compensatory education, the judgment of the district\\ncourt is reversed, and the case is remanded for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\n So ordered.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4418446/\", \"author_raw\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROGERS"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MILLETT"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"GINSBURG"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641193/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Velma OLU-COLE, Parent and Next Friend of M.K., Appellant v. E.L. HAYNES PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL, Appellee\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-19\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued November 9, 2018 Decided July 19, 2019\n\n No. 18-7028\n\n VELMA OLU-COLE, PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND OF M.K.,\n APPELLANT\n\n v.\n\n E.L. HAYNES PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL,\n APPELLEE\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the District of Columbia\n (No. 1:18-cv-00238)\n\n\n Stevie Nabors argued the cause and filed the briefs for\nappellant.\n\n Lauren E. Baum argued the cause and filed the brief for\nappellee.\n\n Before: ROGERS and MILLETT, Circuit Judges, and\nGINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge.\n\nOpinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT.\n\n MILLETT, Circuit Judge: The Individuals with\nDisabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., creates a\npowerful statutory presumption in favor of maintaining the\n\f 2\ncurrent classroom placement of a student with a disability when\nthe school seeks to change his placement over a parent’s\nobjections. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j). That presumption is\ncommonly known as the “stay put” requirement. When a\nchild with a disability has been suspended from school, stay put\nheavily favors promptly returning the child to the classroom.\nSee id. § 1415(k). As an adjunct to stay put, the statute also\nentitles students with disabilities to “appropriate” remedies like\ncompensatory education to make up for any academic\nshortfalls that occur during the time they are kept out of school.\nSee id. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii); Boose v. District of Columbia, 786\nF.3d 1054, 1056 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The local educational\nagency must overcome a heavy evidentiary burden to displace\nthe default rule that the child will stay put.\n\n The district court in this case wrongly denied a stay-put\ninjunction because it placed the burden of proof on the student\nrather than the local educational agency. And that error has\ncontinuing adverse consequences for the student’s claim for\ncompensatory education. For those reasons, we reverse and\nremand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\n\n I\n\n The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”)\noffers federal funding to States, the District of Columbia, and\nother United States territories on the condition that they\nprovide children with disabilities a “free appropriate public\neducation” in the “least restrictive environment.” 20 U.S.C.\n§ 1412(a)(1), (a)(5); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114–117; see generally\nFry v. Napoleon Community Sch., 137 S. Ct. 743, 748–749\n(2017). One of the statute’s key goals is to integrate children\nwith and without disabilities “[t]o the maximum extent\nappropriate.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A).\n\f 3\n The “primary vehicle” for securing an appropriate public\neducation is the child’s “individualized education program,”\nwhich is commonly referred to as an “IEP.” Honig v. Doe,\n484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988); see 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d). The “IEP\nTeam”—which includes school officials, teachers, and\nparents—crafts the educational plan aimed at “meet[ing] the\nchild’s needs” and “enabl[ing] the child to be involved in and\nmake progress in the general educational curriculum[.]” 20\nU.S.C. § 1414 (d)(1)(A)(i)(II)(aa), (d)(1)(B). The statute\ndesignates the “local educational agency” as an integral\nmember of the IEP Team. Id. § 1414(d)(1)(B)(iv); id.\n§ 1401(19) (defining a local educational agency as “a public\nboard of education or other public authority legally constituted\n* * * for either administrative control or direction of, or to\nperform a service function for, public elementary schools or\nsecondary schools”). That local educational agency is\nresponsible for ensuring that the IEP Team both “reviews the\nchild’s IEP * * * to determine whether [his or her] annual goals\n* * * are being achieved[,] and [also] revises the IEP as\nappropriate to address” a lack of progress, the results of\nupdated evaluations or tests, and any “anticipated needs.” Id.\n§ 1414(d)(4)(A). Certain public charter schools, including\nE.L. Haynes Public Charter School (“School”), operate as their\nown local educational agency for purposes of the IDEA. 34\nC.F.R. §§ 300.209, 300.705(a).\n\n It should come as no surprise that parents and school\nofficials sometimes disagree over a child’s placement or the\ndetails of an IEP. The IDEA provides formal dispute-\nresolution procedures to address those conflicts. To start,\nparents or local educational agencies may file a “due process\ncomplaint” to challenge the current IEP or its implementation.\nSee, e.g., 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6), (c)(2). That filing triggers\na preliminary meeting between the parties, id.\n\f 4\n§ 1415(f)(1)(B)(i), as well as the option of mediation, id.\n§ 1415(e).\n\n Where impasse persists, the case proceeds to an\nadministrative hearing—commonly referred to as a “due\nprocess” hearing, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(A)—before a\n“hearing officer” who is not “involved in the education or care\nof the child,” id. § 1415(f)(3)(A). The substantive touchstone\nfor that proceeding is always “whether the child [has] received\na free appropriate public education.” Id. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i).\nIn the District of Columbia, the Office of the State\nSuperintendent for Education is the entity that administers the\ndue process hearings. See D.C. Code Ann. § 38-2572.02.\n\n At the end of that administrative process, any party still\naggrieved may bring a civil action in federal district court to\nchallenge the final administrative determination. 20 U.S.C.\n§ 1415(i)(2)(A). Courts may “grant such relief as [they]\ndetermine[] is appropriate” under the law. Id.\n§ 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii).\n\n Recognizing that this dispute-resolution process can take\ntime, and that parties will continue to disagree in the interim,\nthe IDEA’s “stay put” provision strikes the balance heavily in\nfavor of maintaining the educational status quo for students\nwith disabilities until proceedings have concluded. As\nrelevant here, the IDEA mandates:\n\n Except as provided in subsection (k)(4), during\n the pendency of any proceedings conducted\n pursuant to this section, unless the State or local\n educational agency and the parents otherwise\n agree, the child shall remain in the then-current\n educational placement of the child[.]\n\f 5\n20 U.S.C. § 1415(j). To put it more simply, “all handicapped\nchildren, regardless of whether their case is meritorious or not,\nare to remain in their current educational placement until the\ndispute with regard to their placement is ultimately resolved.”\nMackey v. Board of Educ. for Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 386\nF.3d 158, 161 (2d Cir. 2004) (emphasis omitted) (quoting\nSusquenita Sch. Dist. v. Raelee S., 96 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir.\n1996)).\n\n The purpose of the stay-put command is to “strip schools\nof the unilateral authority they * * * traditionally employed to\nexclude disabled students * * * from school.” Honig, 484\nU.S. at 323 (emphasis in original) (interpreting predecessor\nprovision codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(3) (1988)). And\nthe Supreme Court has held that stay put applies “particularly\n[to] emotionally disturbed students[.]” Id.\n\n But the stay-put mandate is not without limits. The\nprovision carves out an express exception for proceedings\n“provided [for] in subsection (k)(4),” which governs\ndisciplinary proceedings related to certain forms of student\nmisconduct. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); see id. § 1415(k)(4).\nSubsection (k)—titled “Placement in alternative educational\nsetting”—gives schools limited authority to unilaterally\nsuspend students with disabilities for such misconduct. See\n20 U.S.C. § 1415(k). When that happens, the statute\nauthorizes the school to place the student in an “appropriate\ninterim alternative educational setting, another setting, or\nsuspension, for not more than 10 school days (to the extent such\nalternatives are applied to children without disabilities).” Id.\n§ 1415(k)(1)(B). That placement decision is to be made on a\n“case-by-case basis,” taking into account each child’s “unique\ncircumstances.” Id. § 1415(k)(1)(A).\n\f 6\n Within the statutorily prescribed ten-day window, the\nschool must determine whether the conduct was a\n“manifestation of the child’s disability.” 20 U.S.C.\n§ 1415(k)(1)(E)(ii). If it was, then the default rule is that the\nchild must be returned “to the placement from which [he or\nshe] was removed.” Id. § 1415(k)(1)(F)(iii); 34 C.F.R.\n§ 300.530(f)(2). If, on the other hand, the misconduct was not\ntied to the student’s disability, then the school can pursue the\nsame disciplinary procedures that “would be applied\nto children without disabilities[.]” 20 U.S.C.\n§ 1415(k)(1)(C).\n\n Even for disability-related misconduct, the presumption\nfavoring return of the student to school gives way when the\nmisconduct involves weapons, drugs, or—as relevant here—\nthe infliction of “serious bodily injury upon another.” 20\nU.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(G); id. § 1415(k)(7) (incorporating 18\nU.S.C. § 1365(h)(3)’s definition of “serious bodily injury”).\nIn those “special circumstances,” the IDEA authorizes the\nschool to “remove [the] student to an interim alternative\neducational setting for not more than 45 school days.” Id.\n§ 1415(k)(1)(G).\n\n When misconduct covered by Section 1415(k) occurs,\nparents may challenge either the “placement [or] manifestation\ndetermination[s]” by requesting a due process hearing. 20\nU.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(A). Local educational agencies may do\nthe same if they “believe[] that maintaining the current\nplacement of the child is substantially likely to result in injury\nto the child or to others[.]” Id.; see id. § 1415(f)(1)(A)\n(hearing procedures apply equally to complaints “under\nsubsection (b)(6) or (k)”).\n\f 7\n Whenever a parent or local educational agency pursues\nthat hearing process, Subsection (k)(4) displaces the general\nstay-put requirement. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j). Instead,\n\n (A) the child shall remain in the interim\n alternative educational setting pending the\n decision of the hearing officer or until the\n expiration of the time period provided for in\n paragraph (1)(C) [which concerns procedures\n for misconduct unrelated to a child’s disability,]\n whichever occurs first, unless the parent and the\n State or local educational agency agree\n otherwise; and\n\n (B) the State or local educational agency shall\n arrange for an expedited hearing, which shall\n occur within 20 school days of the date the\n hearing is requested and shall result in a\n determination within 10 school days after the\n hearing.\nId. § 1415(k)(4).\n\n In other words, the child can be required to remain in the\nalternative interim setting until either (i) the hearing officer\ndecides the expedited appeal (within thirty days of when the\ncomplaint is filed), or (ii) the suspension period that “would\n[have] be[en] applied to children without disabilities” has\nlapsed, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(C). For cases that involve\nmisconduct involving weapons, drugs, or the infliction of\nserious bodily injury, the governing regulations cap the interim\nplacement at the 45-day suspension period. See 34 C.F.R.\n§ 300.533 (explaining that “the child must remain in the\ninterim alternative educational setting pending the decision of\nthe hearing officer or until the expiration of the time period\nspecified in § 300.530(c) or (g), whichever occurs first”)\n\f 8\n(emphasis added); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(g) (permitting schools\nto “remove a student to an interim alternative educational\nsetting for not more than 45 days” if the child “[h]as inflicted\nserious bodily injury upon another person while at school”).\nUpon the request of a local educational agency, the hearing\nofficer has the limited authority to extend the interim\nplacement by “not more than 45 school days if [she] determines\nthat maintaining the current placement * * * is substantially\nlikely to result in injury to the child or to others.” 20 U.S.C.\n§ 1415(k)(3)(B)(ii)(II).\n\n II\n\n M.K. is a high-school student with a significant emotional\ndisability that qualifies him for a specialized education and\nrelated services under the IDEA. On November 6, 2017,\nM.K. assaulted another student at the School, knocking him to\nthe ground and punching him in the head repeatedly. That\nstudent suffered a concussion. The School determined that\nthe behavior was “a manifestation of [M.K.’s] disability,” 20\nU.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E), but still chose to suspend him for the\nstatutory maximum of 45 days, pursuant to § 1415(k)(1)(G).\nDuring the suspension, M.K. received educational services in\nan isolated setting.\n\n On December 4, the School informed M.K.’s mother,\nVelma Olu-Cole, that it would seek a recommendation from\nthe District of Columbia’s Office of the State Superintendent\nfor Education regarding whether M.K should be permanently\ntransferred to a different school. On January 11, 2018, the\nSuperintendent declined to recommend transfer.\n\n On January 17, the School informed Olu-Cole that it\nwould initiate a due process hearing to determine whether a\npermanent change in placement would be appropriate. The\n\f 9\nSchool sought Olu-Cole’s consent to extend M.K.’s interim\nplacement during the hearing process, but she refused. Olu-\nCole explained that M.K. had previously been receiving more\nthan 98 percent of his instruction in a general educational\nsetting, and she worried he would struggle further if subjected\nto continued education “in isolation” from his peers. J.A. 40.\n\n On January 24, M.K. attempted to return to the School, but\nhe was refused readmission. The next day, the School\nrequested a due process hearing on whether (i) M.K. should be\ntransferred to a non-public, special-education day school; and\n(ii) his interim placement could continue until that process was\ncompleted, see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(B)(ii)(II). That\nhearing was scheduled for February 26, 2018, with a decision\nexpected in early March, see generally id. § 1415(k)(4)(B).\n\n Meanwhile, on January 31, 2018, M.K.’s suspension\nreached the IDEA’s 45-day cap. The next day, Olu-Cole filed\na complaint and motions for a temporary restraining order and\na preliminary injunction to compel M.K.’s reinstatement under\nthe stay-put provision. 1 Her complaint asked the court to\ndeclare a violation of stay put, to order the School to readmit\nM.K., and to grant emergency injunctive and declaratory relief.\nThe memoranda in support of those motions also asked for an\naccompanying award of “compensatory education for any\nviolations of stay put.” J.A. 31, 49.\n\n The district court denied a temporary restraining order on\n\n 1\n Olu-Cole sought to compel M.K.’s reinstatement under\nSection 1415(j) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.518, but those provisions are\ninapplicable because the School sought M.K.’s continued exclusion\npursuant to Section 1415(k)(3). In any event, the district court\ncorrectly applied the operative provisions in Section 1415(k) and 34\nC.F.R. § 300.533. See Olu-Cole v. E.L. Haynes Pub. Charter Sch.,\n292 F. Supp. 3d 413, 418 (D.D.C. 2019).\n\f 10\nFebruary 2, and denied a preliminary injunction on February\n23. Olu-Cole v. E.L. Haynes Pub. Charter Sch., 292 F. Supp.\n3d 413, 421 (D.D.C. 2019). In its opinion denying the\npreliminary injunction, the court found that Olu-Cole was\nlikely to succeed on the merits because she had met the\nestablished two-part test for stay put by showing that\n(i) proceedings under the IDEA were “pending,” and (ii) the\nSchool sought a change in M.K.’s “then-current educational\nplacement.” Id. at 417–419. The district court nonetheless\ndenied the motion because the hearing officer was expected to\nrule in two weeks, and Olu-Cole had not demonstrated that\nM.K. was likely to suffer irreparable harm from extending the\nsuspension until the officer ruled. Id. at 420. The district\ncourt also accepted the School’s argument that M.K.’s return\nto school “would raise an unacceptably significant potential of\ninjury to other interested parties.” Id. Given the\n“significant public interest in maintaining school safety[,]” the\ndistrict court denied the motion. Id.\n As it turns out, the School failed to keep the district court\nup to date on changes in its position. The day before the court\nissued its decision, the School filed with the hearing officer a\nmotion to withdraw its administrative due process complaint\nand notified Olu-Cole that it was ready to discuss M.K.’s\nreadmission. Unapprised of the School’s change of heart, the\ndistrict court denied M.K.’s entitlement to stay put because of\n“school safety.” Olu-Cole, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 420.\n\n Olu-Cole appealed the next business day. Within two\ndays, the School readmitted M.K., and the hearing officer\ndismissed the School’s administrative complaint with\nprejudice.\n\n III\n\f 11\n Ordinarily, the party seeking a preliminary injunction must\nmake a “clear showing” that she is likely to succeed on the\nmerits; she will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of\npreliminary relief; the “balance of equities” tips in her favor;\nand an injunction would serve the public interest. Winter v.\nNatural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 22 (2008);\naccord Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1038 (D.C. Cir.\n2014).\n\n The IDEA’s stay-put provision turns that traditional\nframework on its head. Section 1415(j) effectively provides\nfor an automatic statutory injunction upon a two-factor\nshowing that (i) an administrative due process proceeding is\n“pend[ing],” and (ii) the local educational agency is attempting\nto alter the student’s “then-current educational placement.”\n20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); see Casey K. ex rel. Norman K. v. Saint\nAnne Community High Sch. Dist. No. 302, 400 F.3d 508, 511\n(7th Cir. 2005) (Posner, J.) (comparing stay-put injunction to\nan automatic stay in a bankruptcy case); Wagner v. Board of\nEduc. of Montgomery Cty., 335 F.3d 297, 301 (4th Cir. 2003)\n(“automatic” injunction); John T. ex rel. Paul T. v. Delaware\nCty. Intermediate Unit, 318 F.3d 545, 556 (3d Cir. 2003)\n(same); Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 78 F.3d 859, 864 (3d\nCir. 1996) (stay put “functions, in essence as an automatic\npreliminary injunction”); Light v. Parkway C-2 Sch. Dist., 41\nF.3d 1223, 1227 (8th Cir. 1994) (same).\n\n Because the IDEA deems the exclusion from appropriate\npublic education itself to be a significant harm, once those two\nstatutory factors are established, the student need not otherwise\n“show[] irreparable harm.” Andersen ex rel. Andersen v.\nDistrict of Columbia, 877 F.2d 1018, 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1989)\n(discussing predecessor statute); accord Casey K., 400 F.3d at\n511.\n\f 12\n The Supreme Court has said, though, that stay put does not\ncompletely displace the “equitable powers of district courts\nsuch that they cannot, in appropriate cases, temporarily enjoin\na dangerous disabled child from attending school[,]” and that\ncourts may tailor the order to provide “appropriate” relief.\nHonig, 484 U.S. at 327 (discussing 20 U.S.C.\n§ 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii)’s identically worded antecedent).\nInstead, stay put “effectively creates a presumption in favor of\nthe child’s current educational placement which school\nofficials can overcome only by showing that maintaining the\nchild in his or her current placement is substantially likely to\nresult in injury either to himself or herself, or to others.” Id.\nat 328. That means it is the school, and not the parent, that\nmust invoke the court’s equitable power to jam the “automatic”\nstatutory trigger for injunctive relief. And so it is the school,\nand not the parent, that bears the heavy burden of securing\npreliminary relief. See id.; Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.\n\n To be sure, as a formal matter, Olu-Cole, rather than the\nSchool, was the one that filed a motion for preliminary\ninjunctive relief in this case. But, as Honig held, the IDEA\nmade the grant of that injunction virtually automatic once Olu-\nCole made the two-factor showing that a due process hearing\nwas pending and that the School sought to undo an existing\nplacement. After that, “school officials [could not] escape the\npresumptive effect of the stay-put provision simply by\nviolating it and forcing parents to petition for relief.” Honig,\n484 U.S. at 328 n.10. Instead, even though the parents are the\nones “seeking injunctive relief for a violation of [Section]\n1415[(j)], the burden rests with the school district to\ndemonstrate that the educational status quo must be altered.”\nId.\n\n Taking it down to brass tacks, once Olu-Cole’s motion for\na preliminary injunction demonstrated that the two statutorily\n\f 13\nrequired factors were met, there was a paradigm shift. Stay\nput locked in M.K.’s educational status quo, and the party that\nneeded injunctive relief was the School seeking to derail the\nstatute’s ordinary operation. See Board of Educ. of\nCommunity High Sch. Dist. No. 218 v. Illinois State Bd. of\nEduc., 103 F.3d 545, 548–550 (7th Cir. 1996) (motion for a\npreliminary “injunction was an effort to maintain the status\nquo, and thus within the purview of the stay-put provision”);\nDrinker, 78 F.3d at 864 (treating preliminary injunction as a\nvehicle to enforce “automatic” stay-put injunction); Joshua A.\nv. Rocklin Unified Sch. Dist., 559 F.3d 1036, 1037 (9th Cir.\n2009) (“A motion for stay put functions as an ‘automatic’\npreliminary injunction, meaning that the moving party need not\nshow the traditionally required factors (e.g., irreparable harm)\nin order to obtain preliminary relief.”) (citation omitted); cf.\nWagner, 335 F.3d at 302; Light, 41 F.3d at 1227; Doe v.\nBrookline Sch. Comm., 722 F.2d 910, 917 (1st Cir. 1983).\n\n This has long been the understanding of the district courts\nin this circuit. See, e.g., Z.B. v. District of Columbia, 292 F.\nSupp. 3d 300, 304 (D.D.C. 2018); G.B. v. District of Columbia,\n78 F. Supp. 3d 109, 113 (D.D.C. 2015); Wimbish v. District of\nColumbia, 153 F. Supp. 3d. 4, 10 (D.D.C. 2015); Eley v.\nDistrict of Columbia, 47 F. Supp. 3d 1, 19 (D.D.C. 2014);\nD.K. ex rel. Klein v. District of Columbia, 962 F. Supp. 2d 227,\n232 (D.D.C. 2013); District of Columbia v. Vinyard, 901 F.\nSupp. 2d 77, 84 (D.D.C. 2012); Laster v. District of Columbia,\n439 F. Supp. 2d 93, 98 (D.D.C. 2006); Saleh v. District of\nColumbia, 660 F. Supp. 212, 214 (D.D.C. 1987). And we\nagree. That is the framework the district court should have\napplied in this case.\n\n But it did not. Olu-Cole is unquestionably correct that the\ndistrict court erred in putting the burden of proof on her to\n\f 14\nprove that M.K. would be irreparably harmed by a denial of the\nstay-put injunction.\n\n The district court began, as it should have, by asking the\nnarrow merits question whether M.K. had established stay\nput’s two conditions precedent—that is, that due process\nproceedings were then pending, and that the school was\nattempting to deviate from M.K.’s “then-current” placement.\nOlu-Cole, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 418–419. The district court\nfound those two conditions satisfied. So far, so good.\n\n At that point, Olu-Cole was presumptively entitled to have\nM.K. stay put while the School sought an order allowing it to\nmove him to a new location. And the burden shifted to the\nSchool to meet the heavy burden of overcoming that\npresumption. See Honig, 484 U.S. at 328; Wagner, 335 F.3d\nat 302; Drinker, 78 F.3d at 864; Brookline Sch., 722 F.2d at\n917.\n\n That is where the district court veered off the tracks.\nInstead of requiring the School to shoulder the difficult burden\nof justifying its continued exclusion of M.K., the district court\nput the burden on Olu-Cole to show that “M.K. would * * *\nsuffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.” Olu-\nCole, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 420. That was straightforward legal\nerror.\n\n The School does not seriously attempt to defend the\ndistrict court’s erroneous burden shifting. Instead, the School\ntries to repackage the district court’s decision as just making\nthe right findings under the wrong prong. School Br. 38–41.\nIn finding that M.K.’s readmission posed an “unacceptably\nsignificant potential of injury to other interested parties,” Olu-\nCole, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 420, the School argues, the district\ncourt necessarily would have concluded that the School met its\n\f 15\ntask of demonstrating irreparable harm from M.K.’s\nreadmission. School Br. 41.\n\n Not so. This court has said time and again that the degree\nof proof required for “irreparable harm” is “high,” and that a\nfailure to surmount it provides “grounds for refusing to issue a\npreliminary injunction, even if the other three factors entering\nthe calculus merit such relief.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel\nChurches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006); cf.\nNken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (irreparable injury\nand likelihood of success are the two “most critical” showings\nrequired to obtain a stay). The injury “must be both certain\nand great; it must be actual and not theoretical [and] * * * of\nsuch imminence that there is a ‘clear and present’ need for\nequitable relief.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, 454\nF.3d at 297 (quoting Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d\n669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (per curiam)); Doe v. Mattis, 889\nF.3d 745, 782 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (injury must be “certain,”\n“great” and “actual”).\n\n No comparable burden accompanies the public-interest\nfactors upon which the district court principally relied and in\nwhich it housed its finding of “potential” harm. Olu-Cole, 292\nF. Supp. 3d at 420. So, in concluding that M.K.’s return\n“would raise an unacceptably significant potential of injury to\nother interested parties,” id. (emphasis added), the district court\ndid not find that the harm was “certain,” “great” and “actual.”\nMattis, 889 F.3d at 782.\n\n It also must be remembered that the stay-put provision\nreflects Congress’s considered judgment that children with\ndisabilities are substantially harmed by and must be protected\nagainst school policies of unilateral disruption and exclusion.\nSee Honig, 484 U.S. at 308; Joshua A., 559 F.3d at 1040.\nThat presumably is why the statutory stay-put scheme requires\n\f 16\nno additional showing of harm by the individual student. Any\njudicial decision to override that congressional judgment\nwould be both “extraordinary and drastic,” and should be\nwithheld “unless the [school]” carries its heavy burden “by a\nclear showing” of irreparable harm. Mazurek v. Armstrong,\n520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright,\nArthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and\nProcedure § 2948 (2d ed. 1995)). The district court’s\ninversion—flipping that heavy burden to the parent—\n“dilute[d] th[at] statutory framework” and the robust\nprocedural protections it extends to children with disabilities.\nSee Board of Educ. of Community High Sch., 103 F.3d at 550.\n\n That erroneous reordering of the burden of proof\nnecessarily constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Koon v.\nUnited States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996); accord Wagner, 335\nF.3d at 301.\n\n The problems with the School’s position do not stop there.\nIts insistence that the denial of stay put can be sustained on the\nground that readmitting M.K. posed an unacceptably high\nthreat to the safety of the school community stands in glaring\ntension with its own independent decision to readmit M.K.,\nwhich was made prior to the district court’s ruling. Had the\ncourt been apprised of this reversal in the School’s position, it\nwould seem untenable for it still to have found that M.K.’s\nreadmission was “substantially likely to result in injury” to the\nschool community. See Honig, 484 U.S. at 328 (emphasis\nadded). The School cannot evade the evidentiary weight of its\nown real-world behavior just by failing to alert the district court\nto it.\n\n IV\n\f 17\n The School separately argues that this appeal is moot as a\nresult of M.K.’s readmission, combined with the dismissal with\nprejudice of the School’s administrative due process complaint.\nThat argument ignores that the wrongful denial of stay put not\nonly delayed M.K.’s return to school, but altered his\nentitlement to compensatory educational services, a claim that\nremains live in this case.\n\n Mootness “ensures compliance with Article III’s case and\ncontroversy requirement by ‘limit[ing] federal courts to\ndeciding actual, ongoing controversies.’” Aref v. Lynch, 833\nF.3d 242, 250 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting\nAmerican Bar Ass’n v. FTC, 636 F.3d 641, 645 (D.C. Cir.\n2011)). A plaintiff’s failure to satisfy that Article III\nprerequisite deprives the federal court of jurisdiction to act in\nthe case. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 95\n(1998).\n\n Because this case involves a motion for preliminary\nequitable relief, Article III requires that the parties retain “a\nlegally cognizable interest in the determination of whether the\npreliminary injunction was properly denied.” See Animal\nLegal Def. Fund v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 363, 366 (D.C. Cir. 1995);\naccord Pulphus v. Ayers, 909 F.3d 1148, 1152 (D.C. Cir.\n2018). That is, would reversal either “affect the parties’\nrights” or “have a more-than-speculative chance of affecting\nthem in the future”? Aref, 833 F.3d at 250 (internal quotation\nmarks omitted) (quoting American Bar Ass’n, 636 F.3d at 645);\nsee Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013) (Mootness\nobtains “only when it is impossible for a court to grant any\neffectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.”) (citation\nomitted).\n\n This case is not moot because M.K. retains a “concrete\ninterest * * * in the outcome of the litigation,” and the district\n\f 18\ncourt could still grant “effectual relief.” Chafin, 568 U.S. at\n172. In holding that M.K. was not entitled to a stay-put\ninjunction, the district court’s order had the dual effect of both\n(i) empowering the School to continue excluding M.K. from its\neducational services, and (ii) limiting M.K.’s claim to\ncompensatory educational relief for the time of that extended\nexclusion. Compensatory education is “education services\ndesigned to make up for past deficiencies in a child’s program,”\nBoose, 786 F.3d at 1056 (citation omitted), and to return a\nstudent to the position he would have been in the absence of an\nIDEA violation, B.D. v. District of Columbia, 817 F.3d 792,\n798 (D.C. Cir. 2016).\n\n By holding that M.K. was not entitled to stay put, the\ndistrict court foreclosed M.K.’s ability to obtain compensatory\neducation for the (post-suspension) period of his exclusion\nfrom school. To put it simply, if M.K. was not legally entitled\nto be in school, his claim that he was entitled to classroom-\nequivalent compensatory educational services would fail as\nwell because there would be no predicate IDEA violation\nwarranting compensatory education. See B.D., 817 F.3d at\n798. That is why Olu-Cole’s request for a stay-put injunction\nsought not just M.K.’s physical reentry into the classroom, but\nalso the attendant eligibility for compensatory services for the\nperiod for which he was wrongly excluded. Cf. M.R. v. Ridley\nSch. Dist., 868 F.3d 218, 229–230 (3d Cir. 2017) (Section\n1415(j) “gives rise to two concomitant rights” to stay put and\nto compensatory education) (emphasis added); Doe v. East\nLyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 456 (2d Cir. 2015) (“[W]hen\nan educational agency has violated the stay-put provision,\ncompensatory education may—and generally should—be\nawarded to make up for any appreciable difference between the\nfull value of stay-put services owed” and what was actually\nprovided.).\n\f 19\n In short, because the injury alleged went beyond the\nongoing physical exclusion from school and included the\neducational consequences of his delayed return, the School’s\nbelated decision to readmit M.K. did not fully cure his injury,\nand the consequences of the denial of stay put continue.\n\n It is true that, even if M.K. were not entitled to return to\nschool after 45 days, Olu-Cole might still win compensatory\neducation for any inadequacies in the alternative educational\nplacement where he remained. But that award would not\ncompensate M.K. for the effects of the School’s unlawful\nexclusion. That is because determining what (if any)\ncompensatory education is due is a comparative question.\nCompensatory education seeks to restore a student to where the\nIDEA required the student to be and to “undo the * * *\naffirmative harm” resulting from the particular IDEA violation.\nB.D., 817 F.3d at 798; see Boose, 786 F.3d at 1056. If M.K.\nwas not eligible to return to school, then the sufficiency of his\neducational services will be measured against the standard for\nout-of-school education. If he were entitled to stay put, in-\nschool education becomes the comparative baseline. See\nOlu-Cole’s Reply Br. 20.\n\n So understood, the denial of a stay-put injunction vitiated\nthe alleged stay-put violation and, along with it, any attendant\nright to compensatory education to make up for a wrongful\nexclusion under the IDEA. And because Olu-Cole has\nidentified distinct and concrete consequences that continue to\nrun from the district court’s stay-put denial, the case is not\nmooted just by M.K.’s readmission. See Chafin, 568 U.S. at\n172; McBryde v. Committee to Review Circuit Council\nConduct & Disability Orders of Judicial Conference of U.S.,\n264 F.3d 52, 57 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (no mootness where “injury\nto reputation is alleged as a secondary effect of an otherwise\nmoot action,” if “tangible, concrete effect remain[s] * * *\n\f 20\nsusceptible to judicial correction”) (citation and quotation\nmarks omitted); cf. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 8 (1998)\n(case or controversy would exist even after a conviction is set\naside if petitioner demonstrates that “concrete disadvantages\n* * * were [actually] imposed as a matter of law”).\n\n Here, M.K.’s compensatory education request is not\nmerely a “collateral consequence” of the underlying stay-put\ndispute, Spencer, 523 U.S. at 8. It is part and parcel of it.\nWhich presumably is why Olu-Cole appended the request for\ncompensatory education to her motion for preliminary\ninjunctive relief. Oral Arg. Tr. at 16 (Olu-Cole’s attorney\nexplaining that stay put and compensatory education are\n“inextricably intertwined”); see also M.R., 868 F.3d at 229–\n230.2\n\n Lastly, the School challenges the predicate assumption\nthat stay put applied at all in this case. In its view, 34 C.F.R.\n§ 300.533—which limits the interim placement to the 45-day\nperiod specified in § 300.530(g)—conflicts with the IDEA’s\n\n 2\n On July 8, 2019, the School notified this Court that M.K. has\nnow graduated from high school. That does not affect our mootness\nanalysis because M.K. remains eligible for compensatory education.\nSee Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist. No. 3, 31 F.3d 1489,\n1496 (9th Cir. 1994) (reaching the merits of a compensatory\neducation award for student who graduated from high school); Pihl\nv. Massachusetts Dep’t of Educ., 9 F.3d 184, 189 (1st Cir. 1993)\n(“[A] student who was deprived of services to which he was entitled\nunder the IDEA has a right to a remedy, in the form of compensatory\neducation, regardless of his eligibility for current or future services\nunder the Act.”); Brett v. Goshen Community Sch. Corp., 161 F.\nSupp. 2d 930, 943 (N.D. Ind. 2001) (same); cf. Zobrest v. Catalina\nFoothills Sch. Dist., 509 U.S. 1, 4 n.3 (1993) (graduation did not\nmoot parents’ reimbursement claim for the cost of a private\ninterpreter hired to help their son graduate).\n\f 21\nexpress directive that the child “remain in the interim\nalternative educational setting” until the hearing officer issues\nher decision, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4). School Br. 19–20.\n\n That position fails to read the statutory text as a whole.\nFirst, Section 1415(k)(1)(G) explicitly limits a school’s\nauthority to “remove a student to an interim alternative\neducational setting for not more than 45 school days.”\n(emphasis added). If a school could wait until the 45th day to\nrequest a hearing, it could exclude a child for up to 75 days, in\ndirect contravention of the “no more than 45 school days”\nmandate, id. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4)(A).\n\n Second, Section 1415(k)(3)(B)(ii)(II) imposes a parallel\nlimitation, allowing hearing officers only to “order a change in\nplacement of a child with a disability to an appropriate interim\nalternative educational setting for not more than 45 school\ndays.” (emphasis added). The challenged regulation reads the\nstatutory provisions together, consistent with the IDEA’s\nexpedited 30-day hearing schedule. See Olu-Cole, 292 F.\nSupp. 3d at 419 n.2 (noting that Section 1415(k)(4)\n“contemplates a decision within 30 school days, well within the\n45 days provided by [§ 1415(k)(1)(G)]”).\n\n *****\n\n Because the district court materially erred in its legal\nanalysis of the stay-put motion and because the consequences\nof that decision have continuing consequences for M.K.’s\nclaim for compensatory education, the judgment of the district\ncourt is reversed, and the case is remanded for further\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\n\n So ordered.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Velma OLU-COLE, Parent and Next Friend of M.K., Appellant v. E.L. HAYNES PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL, Appellee\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-19\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued November 9, 2018 Decided July 19, 2019\\n\\n No. 18-7028\\n\\n VELMA OLU-COLE, PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND OF M.K.,\\n APPELLANT\\n\\n v.\\n\\n E.L. HAYNES PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL,\\n APPELLEE\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the District of Columbia\\n (No. 1:18-cv-00238)\\n\\n\\n Stevie Nabors argued the cause and filed the briefs for\\nappellant.\\n\\n Lauren E. Baum argued the cause and filed the brief for\\nappellee.\\n\\n Before: ROGERS and MILLETT, Circuit Judges, and\\nGINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge.\\n\\nOpinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT.\\n\\n MILLETT, Circuit Judge: The Individuals with\\nDisabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., creates a\\npowerful statutory presumption in favor of maintaining the\\n\\f 2\\ncurrent classroom placement of a student with a disability when\\nthe school seeks to change his placement over a parent’s\\nobjections. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j). That presumption is\\ncommonly known as the “stay put” requirement. When a\\nchild with a disability has been suspended from school, stay put\\nheavily favors promptly returning the child to the classroom.\\nSee id. § 1415(k). As an adjunct to stay put, the statute also\\nentitles students with disabilities to “appropriate” remedies like\\ncompensatory education to make up for any academic\\nshortfalls that occur during the time they are kept out of school.\\nSee id. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii); Boose v. District of Columbia, 786\\nF.3d 1054, 1056 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The local educational\\nagency must overcome a heavy evidentiary burden to displace\\nthe default rule that the child will stay put.\\n\\n The district court in this case wrongly denied a stay-put\\ninjunction because it placed the burden of proof on the student\\nrather than the local educational agency. And that error has\\ncontinuing adverse consequences for the student’s claim for\\ncompensatory education. For those reasons, we reverse and\\nremand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\n I\\n\\n The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”)\\noffers federal funding to States, the District of Columbia, and\\nother United States territories on the condition that they\\nprovide children with disabilities a “free appropriate public\\neducation” in the “least restrictive environment.” 20 U.S.C.\\n§ 1412(a)(1), (a)(5); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114–117; see generally\\nFry v. Napoleon Community Sch., 137 S. Ct. 743, 748–749\\n(2017). One of the statute’s key goals is to integrate children\\nwith and without disabilities “[t]o the maximum extent\\nappropriate.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A).\\n\\f 3\\n The “primary vehicle” for securing an appropriate public\\neducation is the child’s “individualized education program,”\\nwhich is commonly referred to as an “IEP.” Honig v. Doe,\\n484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988); see 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d). The “IEP\\nTeam”—which includes school officials, teachers, and\\nparents—crafts the educational plan aimed at “meet[ing] the\\nchild’s needs” and “enabl[ing] the child to be involved in and\\nmake progress in the general educational curriculum[.]” 20\\nU.S.C. § 1414 (d)(1)(A)(i)(II)(aa), (d)(1)(B). The statute\\ndesignates the “local educational agency” as an integral\\nmember of the IEP Team. Id. § 1414(d)(1)(B)(iv); id.\\n§ 1401(19) (defining a local educational agency as “a public\\nboard of education or other public authority legally constituted\\n* * * for either administrative control or direction of, or to\\nperform a service function for, public elementary schools or\\nsecondary schools”). That local educational agency is\\nresponsible for ensuring that the IEP Team both “reviews the\\nchild’s IEP * * * to determine whether [his or her] annual goals\\n* * * are being achieved[,] and [also] revises the IEP as\\nappropriate to address” a lack of progress, the results of\\nupdated evaluations or tests, and any “anticipated needs.” Id.\\n§ 1414(d)(4)(A). Certain public charter schools, including\\nE.L. Haynes Public Charter School (“School”), operate as their\\nown local educational agency for purposes of the IDEA. 34\\nC.F.R. §§ 300.209, 300.705(a).\\n\\n It should come as no surprise that parents and school\\nofficials sometimes disagree over a child’s placement or the\\ndetails of an IEP. The IDEA provides formal dispute-\\nresolution procedures to address those conflicts. To start,\\nparents or local educational agencies may file a “due process\\ncomplaint” to challenge the current IEP or its implementation.\\nSee, e.g., 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6), (c)(2). That filing triggers\\na preliminary meeting between the parties, id.\\n\\f 4\\n§ 1415(f)(1)(B)(i), as well as the option of mediation, id.\\n§ 1415(e).\\n\\n Where impasse persists, the case proceeds to an\\nadministrative hearing—commonly referred to as a “due\\nprocess” hearing, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(A)—before a\\n“hearing officer” who is not “involved in the education or care\\nof the child,” id. § 1415(f)(3)(A). The substantive touchstone\\nfor that proceeding is always “whether the child [has] received\\na free appropriate public education.” Id. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i).\\nIn the District of Columbia, the Office of the State\\nSuperintendent for Education is the entity that administers the\\ndue process hearings. See D.C. Code Ann. § 38-2572.02.\\n\\n At the end of that administrative process, any party still\\naggrieved may bring a civil action in federal district court to\\nchallenge the final administrative determination. 20 U.S.C.\\n§ 1415(i)(2)(A). Courts may “grant such relief as [they]\\ndetermine[] is appropriate” under the law. Id.\\n§ 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii).\\n\\n Recognizing that this dispute-resolution process can take\\ntime, and that parties will continue to disagree in the interim,\\nthe IDEA’s “stay put” provision strikes the balance heavily in\\nfavor of maintaining the educational status quo for students\\nwith disabilities until proceedings have concluded. As\\nrelevant here, the IDEA mandates:\\n\\n Except as provided in subsection (k)(4), during\\n the pendency of any proceedings conducted\\n pursuant to this section, unless the State or local\\n educational agency and the parents otherwise\\n agree, the child shall remain in the then-current\\n educational placement of the child[.]\\n\\f 5\\n20 U.S.C. § 1415(j). To put it more simply, “all handicapped\\nchildren, regardless of whether their case is meritorious or not,\\nare to remain in their current educational placement until the\\ndispute with regard to their placement is ultimately resolved.”\\nMackey v. Board of Educ. for Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 386\\nF.3d 158, 161 (2d Cir. 2004) (emphasis omitted) (quoting\\nSusquenita Sch. Dist. v. Raelee S., 96 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir.\\n1996)).\\n\\n The purpose of the stay-put command is to “strip schools\\nof the unilateral authority they * * * traditionally employed to\\nexclude disabled students * * * from school.” Honig, 484\\nU.S. at 323 (emphasis in original) (interpreting predecessor\\nprovision codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(3) (1988)). And\\nthe Supreme Court has held that stay put applies “particularly\\n[to] emotionally disturbed students[.]” Id.\\n\\n But the stay-put mandate is not without limits. The\\nprovision carves out an express exception for proceedings\\n“provided [for] in subsection (k)(4),” which governs\\ndisciplinary proceedings related to certain forms of student\\nmisconduct. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); see id. § 1415(k)(4).\\nSubsection (k)—titled “Placement in alternative educational\\nsetting”—gives schools limited authority to unilaterally\\nsuspend students with disabilities for such misconduct. See\\n20 U.S.C. § 1415(k). When that happens, the statute\\nauthorizes the school to place the student in an “appropriate\\ninterim alternative educational setting, another setting, or\\nsuspension, for not more than 10 school days (to the extent such\\nalternatives are applied to children without disabilities).” Id.\\n§ 1415(k)(1)(B). That placement decision is to be made on a\\n“case-by-case basis,” taking into account each child’s “unique\\ncircumstances.” Id. § 1415(k)(1)(A).\\n\\f 6\\n Within the statutorily prescribed ten-day window, the\\nschool must determine whether the conduct was a\\n“manifestation of the child’s disability.” 20 U.S.C.\\n§ 1415(k)(1)(E)(ii). If it was, then the default rule is that the\\nchild must be returned “to the placement from which [he or\\nshe] was removed.” Id. § 1415(k)(1)(F)(iii); 34 C.F.R.\\n§ 300.530(f)(2). If, on the other hand, the misconduct was not\\ntied to the student’s disability, then the school can pursue the\\nsame disciplinary procedures that “would be applied\\nto children without disabilities[.]” 20 U.S.C.\\n§ 1415(k)(1)(C).\\n\\n Even for disability-related misconduct, the presumption\\nfavoring return of the student to school gives way when the\\nmisconduct involves weapons, drugs, or—as relevant here—\\nthe infliction of “serious bodily injury upon another.” 20\\nU.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(G); id. § 1415(k)(7) (incorporating 18\\nU.S.C. § 1365(h)(3)’s definition of “serious bodily injury”).\\nIn those “special circumstances,” the IDEA authorizes the\\nschool to “remove [the] student to an interim alternative\\neducational setting for not more than 45 school days.” Id.\\n§ 1415(k)(1)(G).\\n\\n When misconduct covered by Section 1415(k) occurs,\\nparents may challenge either the “placement [or] manifestation\\ndetermination[s]” by requesting a due process hearing. 20\\nU.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(A). Local educational agencies may do\\nthe same if they “believe[] that maintaining the current\\nplacement of the child is substantially likely to result in injury\\nto the child or to others[.]” Id.; see id. § 1415(f)(1)(A)\\n(hearing procedures apply equally to complaints “under\\nsubsection (b)(6) or (k)”).\\n\\f 7\\n Whenever a parent or local educational agency pursues\\nthat hearing process, Subsection (k)(4) displaces the general\\nstay-put requirement. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j). Instead,\\n\\n (A) the child shall remain in the interim\\n alternative educational setting pending the\\n decision of the hearing officer or until the\\n expiration of the time period provided for in\\n paragraph (1)(C) [which concerns procedures\\n for misconduct unrelated to a child’s disability,]\\n whichever occurs first, unless the parent and the\\n State or local educational agency agree\\n otherwise; and\\n\\n (B) the State or local educational agency shall\\n arrange for an expedited hearing, which shall\\n occur within 20 school days of the date the\\n hearing is requested and shall result in a\\n determination within 10 school days after the\\n hearing.\\nId. § 1415(k)(4).\\n\\n In other words, the child can be required to remain in the\\nalternative interim setting until either (i) the hearing officer\\ndecides the expedited appeal (within thirty days of when the\\ncomplaint is filed), or (ii) the suspension period that “would\\n[have] be[en] applied to children without disabilities” has\\nlapsed, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(C). For cases that involve\\nmisconduct involving weapons, drugs, or the infliction of\\nserious bodily injury, the governing regulations cap the interim\\nplacement at the 45-day suspension period. See 34 C.F.R.\\n§ 300.533 (explaining that “the child must remain in the\\ninterim alternative educational setting pending the decision of\\nthe hearing officer or until the expiration of the time period\\nspecified in § 300.530(c) or (g), whichever occurs first”)\\n\\f 8\\n(emphasis added); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(g) (permitting schools\\nto “remove a student to an interim alternative educational\\nsetting for not more than 45 days” if the child “[h]as inflicted\\nserious bodily injury upon another person while at school”).\\nUpon the request of a local educational agency, the hearing\\nofficer has the limited authority to extend the interim\\nplacement by “not more than 45 school days if [she] determines\\nthat maintaining the current placement * * * is substantially\\nlikely to result in injury to the child or to others.” 20 U.S.C.\\n§ 1415(k)(3)(B)(ii)(II).\\n\\n II\\n\\n M.K. is a high-school student with a significant emotional\\ndisability that qualifies him for a specialized education and\\nrelated services under the IDEA. On November 6, 2017,\\nM.K. assaulted another student at the School, knocking him to\\nthe ground and punching him in the head repeatedly. That\\nstudent suffered a concussion. The School determined that\\nthe behavior was “a manifestation of [M.K.’s] disability,” 20\\nU.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E), but still chose to suspend him for the\\nstatutory maximum of 45 days, pursuant to § 1415(k)(1)(G).\\nDuring the suspension, M.K. received educational services in\\nan isolated setting.\\n\\n On December 4, the School informed M.K.’s mother,\\nVelma Olu-Cole, that it would seek a recommendation from\\nthe District of Columbia’s Office of the State Superintendent\\nfor Education regarding whether M.K should be permanently\\ntransferred to a different school. On January 11, 2018, the\\nSuperintendent declined to recommend transfer.\\n\\n On January 17, the School informed Olu-Cole that it\\nwould initiate a due process hearing to determine whether a\\npermanent change in placement would be appropriate. The\\n\\f 9\\nSchool sought Olu-Cole’s consent to extend M.K.’s interim\\nplacement during the hearing process, but she refused. Olu-\\nCole explained that M.K. had previously been receiving more\\nthan 98 percent of his instruction in a general educational\\nsetting, and she worried he would struggle further if subjected\\nto continued education “in isolation” from his peers. J.A. 40.\\n\\n On January 24, M.K. attempted to return to the School, but\\nhe was refused readmission. The next day, the School\\nrequested a due process hearing on whether (i) M.K. should be\\ntransferred to a non-public, special-education day school; and\\n(ii) his interim placement could continue until that process was\\ncompleted, see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(B)(ii)(II). That\\nhearing was scheduled for February 26, 2018, with a decision\\nexpected in early March, see generally id. § 1415(k)(4)(B).\\n\\n Meanwhile, on January 31, 2018, M.K.’s suspension\\nreached the IDEA’s 45-day cap. The next day, Olu-Cole filed\\na complaint and motions for a temporary restraining order and\\na preliminary injunction to compel M.K.’s reinstatement under\\nthe stay-put provision. 1 Her complaint asked the court to\\ndeclare a violation of stay put, to order the School to readmit\\nM.K., and to grant emergency injunctive and declaratory relief.\\nThe memoranda in support of those motions also asked for an\\naccompanying award of “compensatory education for any\\nviolations of stay put.” J.A. 31, 49.\\n\\n The district court denied a temporary restraining order on\\n\\n 1\\n Olu-Cole sought to compel M.K.’s reinstatement under\\nSection 1415(j) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.518, but those provisions are\\ninapplicable because the School sought M.K.’s continued exclusion\\npursuant to Section 1415(k)(3). In any event, the district court\\ncorrectly applied the operative provisions in Section 1415(k) and 34\\nC.F.R. § 300.533. See Olu-Cole v. E.L. Haynes Pub. Charter Sch.,\\n292 F. Supp. 3d 413, 418 (D.D.C. 2019).\\n\\f 10\\nFebruary 2, and denied a preliminary injunction on February\\n23. Olu-Cole v. E.L. Haynes Pub. Charter Sch., 292 F. Supp.\\n3d 413, 421 (D.D.C. 2019). In its opinion denying the\\npreliminary injunction, the court found that Olu-Cole was\\nlikely to succeed on the merits because she had met the\\nestablished two-part test for stay put by showing that\\n(i) proceedings under the IDEA were “pending,” and (ii) the\\nSchool sought a change in M.K.’s “then-current educational\\nplacement.” Id. at 417–419. The district court nonetheless\\ndenied the motion because the hearing officer was expected to\\nrule in two weeks, and Olu-Cole had not demonstrated that\\nM.K. was likely to suffer irreparable harm from extending the\\nsuspension until the officer ruled. Id. at 420. The district\\ncourt also accepted the School’s argument that M.K.’s return\\nto school “would raise an unacceptably significant potential of\\ninjury to other interested parties.” Id. Given the\\n“significant public interest in maintaining school safety[,]” the\\ndistrict court denied the motion. Id.\\n As it turns out, the School failed to keep the district court\\nup to date on changes in its position. The day before the court\\nissued its decision, the School filed with the hearing officer a\\nmotion to withdraw its administrative due process complaint\\nand notified Olu-Cole that it was ready to discuss M.K.’s\\nreadmission. Unapprised of the School’s change of heart, the\\ndistrict court denied M.K.’s entitlement to stay put because of\\n“school safety.” Olu-Cole, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 420.\\n\\n Olu-Cole appealed the next business day. Within two\\ndays, the School readmitted M.K., and the hearing officer\\ndismissed the School’s administrative complaint with\\nprejudice.\\n\\n III\\n\\f 11\\n Ordinarily, the party seeking a preliminary injunction must\\nmake a “clear showing” that she is likely to succeed on the\\nmerits; she will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of\\npreliminary relief; the “balance of equities” tips in her favor;\\nand an injunction would serve the public interest. Winter v.\\nNatural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 22 (2008);\\naccord Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1038 (D.C. Cir.\\n2014).\\n\\n The IDEA’s stay-put provision turns that traditional\\nframework on its head. Section 1415(j) effectively provides\\nfor an automatic statutory injunction upon a two-factor\\nshowing that (i) an administrative due process proceeding is\\n“pend[ing],” and (ii) the local educational agency is attempting\\nto alter the student’s “then-current educational placement.”\\n20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); see Casey K. ex rel. Norman K. v. Saint\\nAnne Community High Sch. Dist. No. 302, 400 F.3d 508, 511\\n(7th Cir. 2005) (Posner, J.) (comparing stay-put injunction to\\nan automatic stay in a bankruptcy case); Wagner v. Board of\\nEduc. of Montgomery Cty., 335 F.3d 297, 301 (4th Cir. 2003)\\n(“automatic” injunction); John T. ex rel. Paul T. v. Delaware\\nCty. Intermediate Unit, 318 F.3d 545, 556 (3d Cir. 2003)\\n(same); Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 78 F.3d 859, 864 (3d\\nCir. 1996) (stay put “functions, in essence as an automatic\\npreliminary injunction”); Light v. Parkway C-2 Sch. Dist., 41\\nF.3d 1223, 1227 (8th Cir. 1994) (same).\\n\\n Because the IDEA deems the exclusion from appropriate\\npublic education itself to be a significant harm, once those two\\nstatutory factors are established, the student need not otherwise\\n“show[] irreparable harm.” Andersen ex rel. Andersen v.\\nDistrict of Columbia, 877 F.2d 1018, 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1989)\\n(discussing predecessor statute); accord Casey K., 400 F.3d at\\n511.\\n\\f 12\\n The Supreme Court has said, though, that stay put does not\\ncompletely displace the “equitable powers of district courts\\nsuch that they cannot, in appropriate cases, temporarily enjoin\\na dangerous disabled child from attending school[,]” and that\\ncourts may tailor the order to provide “appropriate” relief.\\nHonig, 484 U.S. at 327 (discussing 20 U.S.C.\\n§ 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii)’s identically worded antecedent).\\nInstead, stay put “effectively creates a presumption in favor of\\nthe child’s current educational placement which school\\nofficials can overcome only by showing that maintaining the\\nchild in his or her current placement is substantially likely to\\nresult in injury either to himself or herself, or to others.” Id.\\nat 328. That means it is the school, and not the parent, that\\nmust invoke the court’s equitable power to jam the “automatic”\\nstatutory trigger for injunctive relief. And so it is the school,\\nand not the parent, that bears the heavy burden of securing\\npreliminary relief. See id.; Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.\\n\\n To be sure, as a formal matter, Olu-Cole, rather than the\\nSchool, was the one that filed a motion for preliminary\\ninjunctive relief in this case. But, as Honig held, the IDEA\\nmade the grant of that injunction virtually automatic once Olu-\\nCole made the two-factor showing that a due process hearing\\nwas pending and that the School sought to undo an existing\\nplacement. After that, “school officials [could not] escape the\\npresumptive effect of the stay-put provision simply by\\nviolating it and forcing parents to petition for relief.” Honig,\\n484 U.S. at 328 n.10. Instead, even though the parents are the\\nones “seeking injunctive relief for a violation of [Section]\\n1415[(j)], the burden rests with the school district to\\ndemonstrate that the educational status quo must be altered.”\\nId.\\n\\n Taking it down to brass tacks, once Olu-Cole’s motion for\\na preliminary injunction demonstrated that the two statutorily\\n\\f 13\\nrequired factors were met, there was a paradigm shift. Stay\\nput locked in M.K.’s educational status quo, and the party that\\nneeded injunctive relief was the School seeking to derail the\\nstatute’s ordinary operation. See Board of Educ. of\\nCommunity High Sch. Dist. No. 218 v. Illinois State Bd. of\\nEduc., 103 F.3d 545, 548–550 (7th Cir. 1996) (motion for a\\npreliminary “injunction was an effort to maintain the status\\nquo, and thus within the purview of the stay-put provision”);\\nDrinker, 78 F.3d at 864 (treating preliminary injunction as a\\nvehicle to enforce “automatic” stay-put injunction); Joshua A.\\nv. Rocklin Unified Sch. Dist., 559 F.3d 1036, 1037 (9th Cir.\\n2009) (“A motion for stay put functions as an ‘automatic’\\npreliminary injunction, meaning that the moving party need not\\nshow the traditionally required factors (e.g., irreparable harm)\\nin order to obtain preliminary relief.”) (citation omitted); cf.\\nWagner, 335 F.3d at 302; Light, 41 F.3d at 1227; Doe v.\\nBrookline Sch. Comm., 722 F.2d 910, 917 (1st Cir. 1983).\\n\\n This has long been the understanding of the district courts\\nin this circuit. See, e.g., Z.B. v. District of Columbia, 292 F.\\nSupp. 3d 300, 304 (D.D.C. 2018); G.B. v. District of Columbia,\\n78 F. Supp. 3d 109, 113 (D.D.C. 2015); Wimbish v. District of\\nColumbia, 153 F. Supp. 3d. 4, 10 (D.D.C. 2015); Eley v.\\nDistrict of Columbia, 47 F. Supp. 3d 1, 19 (D.D.C. 2014);\\nD.K. ex rel. Klein v. District of Columbia, 962 F. Supp. 2d 227,\\n232 (D.D.C. 2013); District of Columbia v. Vinyard, 901 F.\\nSupp. 2d 77, 84 (D.D.C. 2012); Laster v. District of Columbia,\\n439 F. Supp. 2d 93, 98 (D.D.C. 2006); Saleh v. District of\\nColumbia, 660 F. Supp. 212, 214 (D.D.C. 1987). And we\\nagree. That is the framework the district court should have\\napplied in this case.\\n\\n But it did not. Olu-Cole is unquestionably correct that the\\ndistrict court erred in putting the burden of proof on her to\\n\\f 14\\nprove that M.K. would be irreparably harmed by a denial of the\\nstay-put injunction.\\n\\n The district court began, as it should have, by asking the\\nnarrow merits question whether M.K. had established stay\\nput’s two conditions precedent—that is, that due process\\nproceedings were then pending, and that the school was\\nattempting to deviate from M.K.’s “then-current” placement.\\nOlu-Cole, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 418–419. The district court\\nfound those two conditions satisfied. So far, so good.\\n\\n At that point, Olu-Cole was presumptively entitled to have\\nM.K. stay put while the School sought an order allowing it to\\nmove him to a new location. And the burden shifted to the\\nSchool to meet the heavy burden of overcoming that\\npresumption. See Honig, 484 U.S. at 328; Wagner, 335 F.3d\\nat 302; Drinker, 78 F.3d at 864; Brookline Sch., 722 F.2d at\\n917.\\n\\n That is where the district court veered off the tracks.\\nInstead of requiring the School to shoulder the difficult burden\\nof justifying its continued exclusion of M.K., the district court\\nput the burden on Olu-Cole to show that “M.K. would * * *\\nsuffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.” Olu-\\nCole, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 420. That was straightforward legal\\nerror.\\n\\n The School does not seriously attempt to defend the\\ndistrict court’s erroneous burden shifting. Instead, the School\\ntries to repackage the district court’s decision as just making\\nthe right findings under the wrong prong. School Br. 38–41.\\nIn finding that M.K.’s readmission posed an “unacceptably\\nsignificant potential of injury to other interested parties,” Olu-\\nCole, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 420, the School argues, the district\\ncourt necessarily would have concluded that the School met its\\n\\f 15\\ntask of demonstrating irreparable harm from M.K.’s\\nreadmission. School Br. 41.\\n\\n Not so. This court has said time and again that the degree\\nof proof required for “irreparable harm” is “high,” and that a\\nfailure to surmount it provides “grounds for refusing to issue a\\npreliminary injunction, even if the other three factors entering\\nthe calculus merit such relief.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel\\nChurches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006); cf.\\nNken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (irreparable injury\\nand likelihood of success are the two “most critical” showings\\nrequired to obtain a stay). The injury “must be both certain\\nand great; it must be actual and not theoretical [and] * * * of\\nsuch imminence that there is a ‘clear and present’ need for\\nequitable relief.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, 454\\nF.3d at 297 (quoting Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d\\n669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (per curiam)); Doe v. Mattis, 889\\nF.3d 745, 782 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (injury must be “certain,”\\n“great” and “actual”).\\n\\n No comparable burden accompanies the public-interest\\nfactors upon which the district court principally relied and in\\nwhich it housed its finding of “potential” harm. Olu-Cole, 292\\nF. Supp. 3d at 420. So, in concluding that M.K.’s return\\n“would raise an unacceptably significant potential of injury to\\nother interested parties,” id. (emphasis added), the district court\\ndid not find that the harm was “certain,” “great” and “actual.”\\nMattis, 889 F.3d at 782.\\n\\n It also must be remembered that the stay-put provision\\nreflects Congress’s considered judgment that children with\\ndisabilities are substantially harmed by and must be protected\\nagainst school policies of unilateral disruption and exclusion.\\nSee Honig, 484 U.S. at 308; Joshua A., 559 F.3d at 1040.\\nThat presumably is why the statutory stay-put scheme requires\\n\\f 16\\nno additional showing of harm by the individual student. Any\\njudicial decision to override that congressional judgment\\nwould be both “extraordinary and drastic,” and should be\\nwithheld “unless the [school]” carries its heavy burden “by a\\nclear showing” of irreparable harm. Mazurek v. Armstrong,\\n520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright,\\nArthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and\\nProcedure § 2948 (2d ed. 1995)). The district court’s\\ninversion—flipping that heavy burden to the parent—\\n“dilute[d] th[at] statutory framework” and the robust\\nprocedural protections it extends to children with disabilities.\\nSee Board of Educ. of Community High Sch., 103 F.3d at 550.\\n\\n That erroneous reordering of the burden of proof\\nnecessarily constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Koon v.\\nUnited States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996); accord Wagner, 335\\nF.3d at 301.\\n\\n The problems with the School’s position do not stop there.\\nIts insistence that the denial of stay put can be sustained on the\\nground that readmitting M.K. posed an unacceptably high\\nthreat to the safety of the school community stands in glaring\\ntension with its own independent decision to readmit M.K.,\\nwhich was made prior to the district court’s ruling. Had the\\ncourt been apprised of this reversal in the School’s position, it\\nwould seem untenable for it still to have found that M.K.’s\\nreadmission was “substantially likely to result in injury” to the\\nschool community. See Honig, 484 U.S. at 328 (emphasis\\nadded). The School cannot evade the evidentiary weight of its\\nown real-world behavior just by failing to alert the district court\\nto it.\\n\\n IV\\n\\f 17\\n The School separately argues that this appeal is moot as a\\nresult of M.K.’s readmission, combined with the dismissal with\\nprejudice of the School’s administrative due process complaint.\\nThat argument ignores that the wrongful denial of stay put not\\nonly delayed M.K.’s return to school, but altered his\\nentitlement to compensatory educational services, a claim that\\nremains live in this case.\\n\\n Mootness “ensures compliance with Article III’s case and\\ncontroversy requirement by ‘limit[ing] federal courts to\\ndeciding actual, ongoing controversies.’” Aref v. Lynch, 833\\nF.3d 242, 250 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting\\nAmerican Bar Ass’n v. FTC, 636 F.3d 641, 645 (D.C. Cir.\\n2011)). A plaintiff’s failure to satisfy that Article III\\nprerequisite deprives the federal court of jurisdiction to act in\\nthe case. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 95\\n(1998).\\n\\n Because this case involves a motion for preliminary\\nequitable relief, Article III requires that the parties retain “a\\nlegally cognizable interest in the determination of whether the\\npreliminary injunction was properly denied.” See Animal\\nLegal Def. Fund v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 363, 366 (D.C. Cir. 1995);\\naccord Pulphus v. Ayers, 909 F.3d 1148, 1152 (D.C. Cir.\\n2018). That is, would reversal either “affect the parties’\\nrights” or “have a more-than-speculative chance of affecting\\nthem in the future”? Aref, 833 F.3d at 250 (internal quotation\\nmarks omitted) (quoting American Bar Ass’n, 636 F.3d at 645);\\nsee Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013) (Mootness\\nobtains “only when it is impossible for a court to grant any\\neffectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.”) (citation\\nomitted).\\n\\n This case is not moot because M.K. retains a “concrete\\ninterest * * * in the outcome of the litigation,” and the district\\n\\f 18\\ncourt could still grant “effectual relief.” Chafin, 568 U.S. at\\n172. In holding that M.K. was not entitled to a stay-put\\ninjunction, the district court’s order had the dual effect of both\\n(i) empowering the School to continue excluding M.K. from its\\neducational services, and (ii) limiting M.K.’s claim to\\ncompensatory educational relief for the time of that extended\\nexclusion. Compensatory education is “education services\\ndesigned to make up for past deficiencies in a child’s program,”\\nBoose, 786 F.3d at 1056 (citation omitted), and to return a\\nstudent to the position he would have been in the absence of an\\nIDEA violation, B.D. v. District of Columbia, 817 F.3d 792,\\n798 (D.C. Cir. 2016).\\n\\n By holding that M.K. was not entitled to stay put, the\\ndistrict court foreclosed M.K.’s ability to obtain compensatory\\neducation for the (post-suspension) period of his exclusion\\nfrom school. To put it simply, if M.K. was not legally entitled\\nto be in school, his claim that he was entitled to classroom-\\nequivalent compensatory educational services would fail as\\nwell because there would be no predicate IDEA violation\\nwarranting compensatory education. See B.D., 817 F.3d at\\n798. That is why Olu-Cole’s request for a stay-put injunction\\nsought not just M.K.’s physical reentry into the classroom, but\\nalso the attendant eligibility for compensatory services for the\\nperiod for which he was wrongly excluded. Cf. M.R. v. Ridley\\nSch. Dist., 868 F.3d 218, 229–230 (3d Cir. 2017) (Section\\n1415(j) “gives rise to two concomitant rights” to stay put and\\nto compensatory education) (emphasis added); Doe v. East\\nLyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 456 (2d Cir. 2015) (“[W]hen\\nan educational agency has violated the stay-put provision,\\ncompensatory education may—and generally should—be\\nawarded to make up for any appreciable difference between the\\nfull value of stay-put services owed” and what was actually\\nprovided.).\\n\\f 19\\n In short, because the injury alleged went beyond the\\nongoing physical exclusion from school and included the\\neducational consequences of his delayed return, the School’s\\nbelated decision to readmit M.K. did not fully cure his injury,\\nand the consequences of the denial of stay put continue.\\n\\n It is true that, even if M.K. were not entitled to return to\\nschool after 45 days, Olu-Cole might still win compensatory\\neducation for any inadequacies in the alternative educational\\nplacement where he remained. But that award would not\\ncompensate M.K. for the effects of the School’s unlawful\\nexclusion. That is because determining what (if any)\\ncompensatory education is due is a comparative question.\\nCompensatory education seeks to restore a student to where the\\nIDEA required the student to be and to “undo the * * *\\naffirmative harm” resulting from the particular IDEA violation.\\nB.D., 817 F.3d at 798; see Boose, 786 F.3d at 1056. If M.K.\\nwas not eligible to return to school, then the sufficiency of his\\neducational services will be measured against the standard for\\nout-of-school education. If he were entitled to stay put, in-\\nschool education becomes the comparative baseline. See\\nOlu-Cole’s Reply Br. 20.\\n\\n So understood, the denial of a stay-put injunction vitiated\\nthe alleged stay-put violation and, along with it, any attendant\\nright to compensatory education to make up for a wrongful\\nexclusion under the IDEA. And because Olu-Cole has\\nidentified distinct and concrete consequences that continue to\\nrun from the district court’s stay-put denial, the case is not\\nmooted just by M.K.’s readmission. See Chafin, 568 U.S. at\\n172; McBryde v. Committee to Review Circuit Council\\nConduct & Disability Orders of Judicial Conference of U.S.,\\n264 F.3d 52, 57 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (no mootness where “injury\\nto reputation is alleged as a secondary effect of an otherwise\\nmoot action,” if “tangible, concrete effect remain[s] * * *\\n\\f 20\\nsusceptible to judicial correction”) (citation and quotation\\nmarks omitted); cf. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 8 (1998)\\n(case or controversy would exist even after a conviction is set\\naside if petitioner demonstrates that “concrete disadvantages\\n* * * were [actually] imposed as a matter of law”).\\n\\n Here, M.K.’s compensatory education request is not\\nmerely a “collateral consequence” of the underlying stay-put\\ndispute, Spencer, 523 U.S. at 8. It is part and parcel of it.\\nWhich presumably is why Olu-Cole appended the request for\\ncompensatory education to her motion for preliminary\\ninjunctive relief. Oral Arg. Tr. at 16 (Olu-Cole’s attorney\\nexplaining that stay put and compensatory education are\\n“inextricably intertwined”); see also M.R., 868 F.3d at 229–\\n230.2\\n\\n Lastly, the School challenges the predicate assumption\\nthat stay put applied at all in this case. In its view, 34 C.F.R.\\n§ 300.533—which limits the interim placement to the 45-day\\nperiod specified in § 300.530(g)—conflicts with the IDEA’s\\n\\n 2\\n On July 8, 2019, the School notified this Court that M.K. has\\nnow graduated from high school. That does not affect our mootness\\nanalysis because M.K. remains eligible for compensatory education.\\nSee Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist. No. 3, 31 F.3d 1489,\\n1496 (9th Cir. 1994) (reaching the merits of a compensatory\\neducation award for student who graduated from high school); Pihl\\nv. Massachusetts Dep’t of Educ., 9 F.3d 184, 189 (1st Cir. 1993)\\n(“[A] student who was deprived of services to which he was entitled\\nunder the IDEA has a right to a remedy, in the form of compensatory\\neducation, regardless of his eligibility for current or future services\\nunder the Act.”); Brett v. Goshen Community Sch. Corp., 161 F.\\nSupp. 2d 930, 943 (N.D. Ind. 2001) (same); cf. Zobrest v. Catalina\\nFoothills Sch. Dist., 509 U.S. 1, 4 n.3 (1993) (graduation did not\\nmoot parents’ reimbursement claim for the cost of a private\\ninterpreter hired to help their son graduate).\\n\\f 21\\nexpress directive that the child “remain in the interim\\nalternative educational setting” until the hearing officer issues\\nher decision, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4). School Br. 19–20.\\n\\n That position fails to read the statutory text as a whole.\\nFirst, Section 1415(k)(1)(G) explicitly limits a school’s\\nauthority to “remove a student to an interim alternative\\neducational setting for not more than 45 school days.”\\n(emphasis added). If a school could wait until the 45th day to\\nrequest a hearing, it could exclude a child for up to 75 days, in\\ndirect contravention of the “no more than 45 school days”\\nmandate, id. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4)(A).\\n\\n Second, Section 1415(k)(3)(B)(ii)(II) imposes a parallel\\nlimitation, allowing hearing officers only to “order a change in\\nplacement of a child with a disability to an appropriate interim\\nalternative educational setting for not more than 45 school\\ndays.” (emphasis added). The challenged regulation reads the\\nstatutory provisions together, consistent with the IDEA’s\\nexpedited 30-day hearing schedule. See Olu-Cole, 292 F.\\nSupp. 3d at 419 n.2 (noting that Section 1415(k)(4)\\n“contemplates a decision within 30 school days, well within the\\n45 days provided by [§ 1415(k)(1)(G)]”).\\n\\n *****\\n\\n Because the district court materially erred in its legal\\nanalysis of the stay-put motion and because the consequences\\nof that decision have continuing consequences for M.K.’s\\nclaim for compensatory education, the judgment of the district\\ncourt is reversed, and the case is remanded for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\n So ordered.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3461,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4641194,"string":"4,641,194"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Rodney CLASS, Appellant"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Rodney Class"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-19"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"15-3015"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Griffith, Srinivasan, Sentelle\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued March 13, 2019 Decided July 19, 2019\\n\\n No. 15-3015\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n APPELLEE\\n\\n v.\\n\\n RODNEY CLASS,\\n APPELLANT\\n\\n\\n On Remand from the\\n Supreme Court of the United States\\n\\n\\n Leonard R. Powell argued the cause for appellant. With\\nhim on the briefs was Jessica Ring Amunson.\\n\\n Lauren R. Bates, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause\\nfor appellee. With her on the briefs were Jesse K. Liu, U.S.\\nAttorney, and Elizabeth Trosman, Chrisellen R. Kolb, Jeffrey\\nPearlman, and Valinda Jones, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.\\n\\n Before: GRIFFITH and SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judges, and\\nSENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH.\\n\\n GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: Federal law prohibits the\\npossession of firearms on the grounds of the United States\\n\\f 2\\nCapitol. 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e). Rodney Class pleaded guilty to\\nviolating this law after parking a car containing three guns on\\na street near the Capitol. He now argues that, as applied to his\\ncase, the law violates the Second Amendment and the Due\\nProcess Clause of the Fifth Amendment. These claims lack\\nmerit, and we affirm his conviction.\\n\\n I\\n\\n In May 2013, Rodney Class drove to the United States\\nCapitol in Washington, D.C. He parked his car in one of the\\nmany angled parking spots that line the 200 block of Maryland\\nAvenue SW (the “Maryland Avenue lot”). That parking spot\\nsits just north of the United States Botanic Gardens and\\napproximately 1,000 feet from the entrance to the Capitol itself.\\nThe street is accessible to the general public, but the parking\\nspot Class used is reserved on weekdays (like the Thursday he\\nparked there) for employees of the House of Representatives.\\nThe parking lot is marked by a sign indicating a permit is\\nrequired. Class locked his car and walked inside the Capitol.\\nUpon his return, several police officers were peering into his\\ncar. One asked Class if he had any weapons inside, and he\\nanswered that he did. The officer told Class that it was illegal\\nto have weapons on Capitol Grounds and took Class to Capitol\\nPolice headquarters. When the car was searched, three firearms\\nwere found.\\n\\n Class was indicted for possession of a firearm while on the\\ngrounds of the Capitol, in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(1)\\n(the “Capitol Grounds ban”). He filed several motions seeking\\nto dismiss the indictment, arguing, inter alia, that the Capitol\\nGrounds ban violated his Second Amendment right to bear\\narms. The district court denied these motions from the bench,\\nholding that the Capitol Grounds ban “does not burden conduct\\nprotected by the Second Amendment,” because “laws\\n\\f 3\\nprohibiting individuals from carrying firearms in sensitive\\nplaces, such as government buildings, are presumptively\\nlawful.” Tr. of Mot. Hr’g at 18, United States v. Class, No.\\n1:13-cr-0253-1 (D.D.C. Oct. 27, 2014), Dkt. No. 193. Class\\nsubsequently entered an unconditional guilty plea.\\n\\n Class appealed his conviction on both constitutional and\\nstatutory grounds. United States v. Class, No. 15-3015, 2016\\nWL 10950032, at *1 (D.C. Cir. July 5, 2016). We affirmed his\\nconviction, holding that his unconditional guilty plea waived\\nhis right to appeal on those grounds. Id. at *2. The Supreme\\nCourt reversed, holding that Class did not waive his\\nconstitutional claims because they challenged the\\ngovernment’s very power to make his conduct criminal. Class\\nv. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798, 805 (2018).\\n\\n On remand, we now consider the merits of those claims:\\nfirst, that the ban as applied to Class’s conduct violates his\\nSecond Amendment right to bear arms, and second, that the ban\\nviolates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because\\nthe law defining the Capitol Grounds is complicated enough\\nthat Class lacked notice that he was on them. Because these\\nclaims present questions of law, we review them de novo.\\nUnited States v. Yakou, 428 F.3d 241, 246 (D.C. Cir. 2005).1\\nThe district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231.\\nWe have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.\\n\\n II\\n\\n\\n 1\\n The government argued during Class’s first appeal that we\\nshould review his due process claim for plain error because he had\\nnot raised it in the district court. See Gov’t. Br. 29-30. On remand,\\nthe government has not revived this argument, and agrees with Class\\nthat our review of his constitutional claims is de novo. See Suppl.\\nGov’t. Br. 31.\\n\\f 4\\n To evaluate the constitutionality of firearms regulations,\\nwe first determine “whether a particular provision impinges\\nupon a right protected by the Second Amendment.” Heller v.\\nDistrict of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244, 1252 (D.C.\\nCir. 2011). If it does, we ask “whether the provision passes\\nmuster under the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.”\\nId. Because we conclude that the Capitol Grounds ban does not\\n“impinge[] upon a right protected by the Second Amendment,”\\nwe do not reach the second question.\\n\\n The Second Amendment protects the right to own and\\ncarry a firearm outside the home. Wrenn v. District of\\nColumbia, 864 F.3d 650, 657-58 (D.C. Cir. 2017); see District\\nof Columbia v. Heller (Heller I), 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008). But\\nthe right is not unlimited. The Supreme Court has been careful\\nto note that “longstanding prohibitions” like “laws forbidding\\nthe carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and\\ngovernment buildings” remain “presumptively lawful.” Heller\\nI, 554 U.S. at 626, 627 n.26. A challenger may rebut this\\npresumption only by “showing the regulation [has] more than\\na de minimis effect upon his right” to bear arms. Heller II, 670\\nF.3d at 1253.\\n\\n With respect to the Capitol itself, there are few, if any,\\ngovernment buildings more “sensitive” than the “national\\nlegislature at the very seat of its operations.” Jeanette Rankin\\nBrigade v. Chief of the Capitol Police, 421 F.2d 1090, 1093 n.3\\n(D.C. Cir. 1969). And tragically, gunmen have targeted the\\nCapitol before. Francis Clines, Capitol Hill Slayings: The\\nOverview; Gunman Invades Capitol, Killing 2 Guards, N.Y.\\nTIMES (July 25, 1998),\\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/25/us/capitol-hill-slayings-\\nthe-overview-gunman-invades-capitol-killing-2-guards.html.\\n\\f 5\\n Class, however, was found with a firearm in the Maryland\\nAvenue parking lot, not the Capitol itself. He argues that Heller\\nI refers only to bans on possession “in sensitive places like\\ngovernment buildings,” and the “Maryland Avenue outdoor\\nparking lot, like most of the Capitol Grounds, is certainly not\\n‘in a government building.’” Suppl. Class Br. 22. As a result,\\nhe claims, the ban is “outside of any presumption of\\nconstitutionality that applies only ‘in’ sensitive places.” Id.\\nThis argument slices Heller I too thin. The Supreme Court was\\ncareful to note that Heller I’s list of “presumptively lawful”\\nregulations was not exhaustive, see 554 U.S. at 627 n.26, and\\nwe have little trouble concluding that the same security\\ninterests which permit regulation of firearms “in” government\\nbuildings permit regulation of firearms on the property\\nsurrounding those buildings as well. Indeed, Class appears to\\nconcede this point elsewhere in his brief, agreeing with the\\ngovernment that the White House lawn, for instance, is\\n“sensitive” for purposes of the Second Amendment. See Suppl.\\nClass Br. 25 n.7.\\n\\n As for the Maryland Avenue parking lot, although it is not\\na government building, we conclude that it is sufficiently\\nintegrated with the Capitol for Heller I’s sensitive places\\nexception to apply. Accordingly, we conclude that the Second\\nAmendment does not give Class the right to bear arms in the\\nMaryland Avenue lot. Several facts lead us to this\\ndetermination.\\n\\n First, though it is open to the public, the Maryland Avenue\\nparking lot may be used during working hours only by Capitol\\nemployees with a permit. This makes the area a potential\\nstalking ground for anyone wishing to attack congressional\\nstaff and disrupt the operations of Congress. The operation of\\nthe national legislature depends not only on the ability of\\nmembers of Congress and their staff to conduct business inside\\n\\f 6\\nthe Capitol, but also on their ability to freely and safely travel\\nto and from work. The same special security concerns that\\napply to the employees while in the Capitol apply when they\\nwalk to and from their cars on Capitol property.\\n\\n Second, the lot is close to the Capitol and legislative office\\nbuildings. Class possessed a firearm less than 1,000 feet away\\nfrom the entrance to the Capitol, and a block away from the\\nRayburn House Office Building. Although there is surely some\\nouter bound on the distance Congress could extend the area of\\nprotection around the Capitol without raising Second\\nAmendment concerns, Congress has not exceeded it here.\\n\\n Finally, as the owner of the Maryland Avenue lot, the\\ngovernment—like private property owners—has the power to\\nregulate conduct on its property. See Adderly v. Florida, 385\\nU.S. 39, 47 (1966) (observing in the free-speech context that\\nthe government, “no less than a private owner of property, has\\npower to preserve the property under its control for the use to\\nwhich it is lawfully dedicated”); cf. Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Serv.,\\n790 F.3d 1121, 1126 (10th Cir. 2015) (observing that when the\\nU.S. Postal Service acts “as a proprietor rather than as a\\nsovereign, [it] has broad discretion to govern its business\\noperations according to the rules it deems appropriate”).\\n\\n In sum, because the Maryland Avenue lot has been set\\naside for the use of government employees, is in close\\nproximity to the Capitol building, and is on land owned by the\\ngovernment, we consider the lot as a single unit with the\\nCapitol building, and conclude that the lot is a “sensitive” place\\nwhere firearms prohibitions are presumptively lawful. Accord\\nid. at 1125-28 (finding that a post office parking lot is\\n“sensitive” for Second Amendment purposes); United States v.\\nDorosan, 350 F. App’x 874, 875 (5th Cir. 2009) (same).\\n\\f 7\\n Class raises two counterarguments. First, he tries to\\ndistinguish the Maryland Avenue lot from other outdoor\\ngovernment property that is protected by security or not\\naccessible to the public. In support, he points to language from\\nWrenn, where we concluded that the Second Amendment\\n“enables self-defense at least against the level of threat\\ngenerally faced by those covered by the Amendment:\\nresponsible and law-abiding citizens.” 864 F.3d at 664. Class\\nargues that the need to have a gun for self-defense is lessened\\nin places that are off-limits to the public (like the White House\\nlawn) or protected by metal detectors and security guards (like\\nthe Capitol building). Because neither is true of the Maryland\\nAvenue parking lot, Class contends that law-abiding citizens\\nneed to be able to carry firearms for self-defense. Suppl. Class\\nReply 4.\\n\\n Class reads too much into Wrenn. That case raised the\\nquestion of whether the right to bear arms extended outside the\\nhome and who could exercise that right; this case raises the\\nquestion of where outside the home a person authorized to\\ncarry a firearm may do so. For this inquiry, we do not look to\\nthe “level of threat” posed in a sensitive place. Many “schools”\\nand “government buildings”—the paradigmatic “sensitive\\nplaces” identified in Heller I—are open to the public, without\\nany form of special security or screening. In an unsecured\\ngovernment building like a post office or school, the risk of\\ncrime may be no different than in any other publicly accessible\\nbuilding, yet the Heller I opinion leaves intact bans on firearm\\npossession in those places. As one court put it, those places are\\n“sensitive” for purposes of the Second Amendment because of\\n“the people found there” or the “activities that take place\\nthere.” GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia, 764 F. Supp. 2d\\n1306, 1319 (M.D. Ga. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir.\\n2012).\\n\\f 8\\n Next, Class contends that because the Capitol Grounds ban\\nwas only extended to the Maryland Avenue parking lot in 1980,\\nwith respect to that lot, the ban is not the sort of “longstanding”\\nregulation that is “presumptively lawful” under Heller I. See\\nSuppl. Class Br. 25-26. It is true, as we explained in Heller II,\\nthat “[a] requirement of newer vintage is not . . . presumed to\\nbe valid.” 670 F.3d at 1253. Class’s argument, however,\\nmisinterprets what it means for a regulation to be\\n“longstanding.” Under Class’s reading, the ban in that location\\nmust have been longstanding. But this makes little sense when\\nviewed through the language of Heller I, which spoke generally\\nof “schools” and “government buildings.” 554 U.S. at 626-27.\\nThe relevant inquiry is whether a particular type of regulation\\nhas been a “longstanding” exception to the right to bear arms.\\nSee Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1253-56. A new post office is no less\\na government building than one built in 1789, just as a new\\nwing of the Capitol is still part of that building.\\n\\n Because the Maryland Avenue parking lot is a sensitive\\nplace, the ban on carrying firearms there is “presumptively\\nlawful.” Heller I, 554 U.S. at 627 n.26. To rebut that\\npresumption, Class must show that the ban has “more than a de\\nminimis effect upon his right” to bear arms. Heller II, 670 F.3d\\nat 1253. He cannot. Class contends that the Capitol Grounds\\nban prevents him from exercising his right to self-defense\\nwhile moving about the District, but we rejected a similar\\nargument in Wrenn, observing:\\n\\n [B]ans on carrying only in small pockets of the outside\\n world (e.g., near “sensitive” sites) impose only lightly on\\n most people’s right to “bear arms” in public. As Judge\\n Posner writes: “[W]hen a state bans guns merely in\\n particular places, such as public schools, a person can\\n preserve an undiminished right of self-defense by not\\n entering those places.”\\n\\f 9\\n\\n864 F.3d at 662 (quoting Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 940\\n(7th Cir. 2012)) (citation omitted). The Maryland Avenue\\nparking lot is just the kind of “small pocket of the outside\\nworld” where a ban imposes only “lightly” on the right to carry\\na weapon in the District of Columbia. If Class “wanted to carry\\na gun in his car but abide by the ban,” he could have done so\\nbut parked elsewhere. See Dorosan, 350 F. App’x. at 876.\\n\\n Class argues that the Capitol Grounds, which include\\nalmost 300 acres of the District, are not a small pocket of the\\noutside world, and claims that the ban on possession makes it\\n“practically impossible to travel to other areas around the\\nCapitol with a firearm for self-defense.” Suppl. Class Reply 8.\\nWe see no such problem. While this portion of Maryland\\nAvenue could be used to travel from one part of the District to\\nanother, nothing about the ban prevents a person who wishes\\nto carry a firearm for self-defense from taking an alternate route\\nthat avoids the Capitol Grounds.\\n\\n Class counters by arguing that the boundaries of the\\nCapitol Grounds are not publicly posted and are therefore\\n“indistinguishable from nearby areas where firearms are\\npermitted.” Suppl. Class Br. 14. As a result, he claims that the\\nfear of violating the ban by accident impinges on his ability to\\ncarry a firearm for self-defense even in areas of the District that\\nare not technically covered by the ban. To the extent that he\\ncomplains about lack of notice, we address that issue in our\\ndiscussion of his due process claim. For purposes of his Second\\nAmendment claim, the Maryland Avenue lot is\\n“distinguishable” from other nearby areas because Congress\\nhas set apart the Capitol Grounds from the rest of the district\\nfor the use of the national legislature.\\n\\f 10\\n III\\n\\n Class next argues that he lacked notice his conduct was\\ncriminal because of how difficult it is to determine the\\nboundaries of the Capitol Grounds. Couching his challenge in\\nterms of vagueness, Class suggests that absent such notice, his\\nconviction violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth\\nAmendment. We disagree.\\n\\n The government violates the Due Process Clause when it\\n“tak[es] away someone’s life, liberty, or property under a\\ncriminal law so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair\\nnotice of the conduct it punishes, or so standardless that it\\ninvites arbitrary enforcement.” Johnson v. United States, 135\\nS. Ct. 2551, 2556 (2015). Most vagueness challenges involve\\nassertions of “indeterminacy,” in which the defendant claims\\nthat a criminal statute is so “shapeless” that even a person\\naware of the law cannot know what conduct is prohibited. Id.\\nat 2558, 2560. The text of the Capitol Grounds ban, in contrast,\\nis quite clear: “An individual . . . may not carry on or have\\nreadily accessible . . . on the Grounds or in any of the Capitol\\nBuildings a firearm.” 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e). Indeed, Class does\\nnot—and could not—argue that any of these terms are\\n“indeterminate” or “shapeless.” An ordinary citizen would\\nreadily understand from the text of the statute that he may not\\ncarry a firearm on the Capitol Grounds or inside the Capitol.\\nNor does Class argue that the boundaries of the Capitol\\nGrounds are “shapeless.” The metes and bounds of the Capitol\\nGrounds are precisely defined: with a map of the city and the\\nappropriate legal references, it can be determined with\\ncertainty that the 200 block of Maryland Avenue SW is subject\\nto the ban.\\n\\n Confronted with a clear statute, Class takes a different\\napproach. He argues that, regardless of the precision of the text,\\n\\f 11\\nthe structure of the statute and lack of signage identifying the\\nMaryland Avenue lot as a restricted area makes it “exceedingly\\ndifficult” for an ordinary citizen to actually figure out that the\\nparking lot is part of the Capitol Grounds. Suppl. Class Br. 33.\\nSo difficult, according to Class, that an armed person in the lot\\nlacks fair notice that his conduct is prohibited. In support of his\\nposition, Class relies on the circuitous route an individual must\\ntake to determine whether the lot is part of the Capitol Grounds.\\nFirst, a person must look to the U.S. Code, which defines the\\ngrounds by reference to a 1946 map on file in the Office of the\\nSurveyor of the District of Columbia. 40 U.S.C. § 5102. The\\nmap does not contain the Maryland Avenue lot. However, the\\nstatute goes on to say that the boundaries of the Grounds\\n“includ[e] all additions added by law” after the map was\\nrecorded. Id. So the second step a person must take is to find\\nPublic Law 96-432, which in 1980 expanded the Grounds to\\ninclude “that portion of Maryland Avenue Southwest from the\\nwest curb of First Street Southwest to the east curb of Third\\nStreet Southwest.” Act to Amend the Act of July 31, 1946, as\\namended, Relating to the United States Capitol Grounds, and\\nfor Other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 96-432, (5), 94 Stat. 1851,\\n1851 (1980). The Maryland Avenue lot falls squarely within\\nthis area, but Class argues that the combination of these steps\\nand lack of other identifying features puts determining the\\nboundaries of the Capitol Grounds “beyond the ken of someone\\nof ordinary intelligence and diligence.” Suppl. Class Br. 34.\\n\\n We disagree. It is a bedrock principle that “[c]itizens are\\ncharged with generally knowing the law.” United States v.\\nBronstein, 849 F.3d 1101, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Fair notice\\nusually requires a legislature to “do nothing more than enact\\nand publish the law, and afford the citizenry a reasonable\\nopportunity to familiarize itself with its terms and to comply.”\\nId. (quoting Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516, 532 (1982)).\\nAlthough determining that the ban applies to the Maryland\\n\\f 12\\nAvenue lot is not completely straightforward, we cannot say\\nthat the law is so difficult to understand that it violates the\\nConstitution, for “perfect clarity and precise guidance have\\nnever been required even of regulations that restrict [protected]\\nactivity.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 794\\n(1989).\\n\\n The statutory provisions at issue here were enacted and\\npublished decades ago. See Act of Oct. 20, 1967, Pub. L. No.\\n90-108, 81 Stat. 275, 276 (banning firearms on Capitol\\nGrounds); Pub. L. No. 96-432 (extending Grounds to include\\nthe Maryland Avenue lot). The laws do not use complicated\\nphrasing or specialized vocabulary, referring only to the names\\nof streets that appear on road signs and which can be located\\non widely available maps of the District. And though it is true\\nthat the relevant provisions of the U.S. Code do not themselves\\nreference the Maryland Avenue lot, Class points to no case in\\nwhich a court has held that due process turns on whether a law\\nwas codified or merely enacted and published as a Public Law.\\nClass’s argument has even less force when considered\\nalongside the version of the U.S. Code published by the\\nGovernment Printing Office, which includes as an appendix to\\nthe text of 40 U.S.C. § 5104 a section entitled “Changes in\\nUnited States Capitol Grounds.” 40 U.S.C. § 5104 (2012). That\\nsection contains the text of enactments altering the boundaries\\nof the Grounds, including the 1980 amendment that added the\\nMaryland Avenue lot. Id.\\n\\n The only case that Class identifies in which a court has\\nstruck down a law due to the difficulty of determining\\ngeographic boundaries is Doe v. Snyder, which involved a\\nstatute that prohibited registered sex-offenders from coming\\nwithin 1,000 feet of “school property” used for “educational\\ninstruction” or “sports or other recreational activities.” 101 F.\\nSupp. 3d 672, 682-83 (E.D. Mich. 2015). The district court\\n\\f 13\\nconcluded that the law violated due process because it was\\nunclear how to measure the 1,000 feet (i.e., from the entrance\\nto the building or from the edge of school property lines) and it\\nwould be “difficult for . . . registrants to parse through school-\\nowned real property [records]” to determine which parcels\\nwere used for covered activities. Id. at 682-85. We are of course\\nnot bound by the reasoning of that district court, but in any\\nevent, Doe is easily distinguishable. The Capitol Grounds are\\ndefined by a map and a specific list of intersections and streets\\nthat are part of the public law. A citizen concerned about\\nviolating the ban need not make detailed measurements, sort\\nthrough voluminous real estate records, or speculate about the\\nuses of various parcels of land. He must simply, as is the case\\nwith any criminal law, open the statute book—even if here he\\nmay need two.\\n\\n This case more closely resembles Klein v. San Diego\\nCounty, 463 F.3d 1029, 1039 (9th Cir. 2006), in which the\\nNinth Circuit upheld a ban on picketing within 300 feet of a\\ndwelling. That court conceded that the ordinance might be\\nunconstitutional “if it were impossible for the picketers to\\ndetermine the 300-foot boundary with any precision.” Id. But\\nmaps showing where dwellings were located were available in\\nthe County Tax Assessor’s office, and a “would-be picketer,\\nwith the lot map in hand,” could “estimate the boundary with\\nsome level of precision.” Id. Indeed, the Capitol Grounds ban\\nasks even less of a would-be visitor to the Capitol, because no\\nestimation or measurement is required.\\n\\n Class nevertheless resists the conclusion that the law\\nprovides sufficient notice. He argues that even if the Capitol\\nGrounds ban is not impossible to understand, a heightened\\nlevel of review is applicable here and requires us to strike down\\nthe law. He suggests this is so because “[t]he degree of\\nvagueness that the Constitution tolerates—as well as the\\n\\f 14\\nrelative importance of fair notice and fair enforcement—\\ndepends in part on the nature of the enactment.” Village of\\nHoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S.\\n489, 498 (1982). Class is correct that our analysis must be more\\nsearching in cases in which a law imposes criminal penalties,\\n“threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected\\nrights,” and lacks a scienter requirement. Id. at 498-99; see\\nSuppl. Class Br. 33. Class is also right that all three of those\\nfactors triggering additional skepticism are present here. First,\\nthe Capitol Grounds ban imposes significant criminal\\npenalties. 40 U.S.C. § 5109. Second, the ban at least implicates\\nthe right to bear arms, even if it does not violate the Second\\nAmendment. Cf. N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Cuomo,\\n804 F.3d 242, 265 (2d Cir. 2015) (applying a “more stringent”\\nvagueness standard to a gun regulation).\\n\\n The third factor “affecting the clarity that the Constitution\\ndemands of a law” is whether a statute possesses a scienter\\nrequirement, an inquiry that, at least in this appeal, needs some\\nexplanation. Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 499. “Scienter” is\\n“the degree of knowledge sufficient to ‘mak[e] a person legally\\nresponsible for the consequences of his or her act or\\nomission.’” Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2195\\n(2019) (quoting BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1547 (10th ed.\\n2014)). Here, the district court interpreted the Capitol Grounds\\nban as requiring knowledge as to the possession of a firearm,\\nbut not as to presence on the Capitol Grounds. 2 According to\\nClass, the fact that an armed person who unknowingly wanders\\nonto the grounds could violate the statute counsels against\\nconcluding that the law provides sufficient notice of the\\nconduct it proscribes.\\n\\n 2\\n As we discuss in greater detail below, we are not confronted\\nwith the question of whether the district court’s interpretation of the\\nstatute was correct.\\n\\f 15\\n\\n We agree that the district court’s determination that the\\nCapitol Grounds ban lacks a scienter requirement means “that\\nthe Constitution tolerates” a lesser “degree of vagueness” than\\nwould be permissible had the court reached the contrary\\nconclusion. Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 498. Indeed, we have\\nrelied on the presence of a scienter requirement to uphold laws\\nin the face of vagueness challenges. See, e.g., Wash.\\nMobilization Comm. v. Cullinane, 566 F.2d 107, 118 (D.C. Cir.\\n1977) (holding that a regulation prohibiting the crossing of a\\npolice line comports with the Due Process Clause so long as\\n“the location of the line is clearly indicated and if adequate\\nnotice is given”); accord United States v. Nieves-Castano, 480\\nF.3d 597, 603-04 (1st Cir. 2007).\\n\\n The question on appeal, however, is not whether the more\\nsearching standard from Hoffman Estates applies. It does. The\\nquestion on appeal is whether Class’s conviction violates the\\nDue Process Clause because of how vague the statute is. It does\\nnot. As we noted above, the steps necessary for determining the\\nspecial status of the Maryland Avenue lot are not the most\\nstraightforward. But the statute is sufficiently clear to “give [a]\\nperson of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to\\nknow what is prohibited.” Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 498\\n(quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09\\n(1972)). That is ultimately what the Due Process Clause\\nrequires, and that standard has been met. Cf. Klein, 463 F.3d at\\n1039 (upholding against a vagueness challenge a picketing ban\\ndespite the lack of a scienter requirement).\\n\\n We note in closing that the lack of a scienter requirement\\nin the ban might raise issues of statutory construction. But\\nClass has waived those arguments. In two cases, including one\\ndecided very recently, the Supreme Court has concluded that\\nrestrictions on the possession of firearms require proof of\\n\\f 16\\nscienter. Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2200 (“[T]he Government must\\nprove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm\\nand that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of\\npersons barred from possessing a firearm.”); Staples v.\\nUnited States, 511 U.S. 600, 619 (1994) (“[T]o obtain a\\nconviction, the Government should have been required to\\nprove that [the defendant] knew of the features of his [gun] that\\nbrought it within the scope of the [prohibition].”). The parallel\\nis clear: Rehaif concerned a ban on possession of a gun by a\\nperson with a particular immigration status; Staples concerned\\na ban on possession of a particular type of gun; and this case\\nconcerns a ban on possession of a gun in a particular place.\\n\\n But those cases resolved only “question[s] of statutory\\nconstruction,” not the constitutional right to due process.\\nStaples, 511 U.S. at 604; see Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2194. That\\nis, Staples and Rehaif both concluded that Congress had not\\nintended to impose criminal penalties for possession of a gun\\nwithout proof of scienter; neither case addressed whether or not\\nCongress lacks the power to impose such penalties. And here,\\nthe Supreme Court held only that the claims which survived\\nClass’s guilty plea were those that “challenge the\\nGovernment’s power to criminalize” his conduct. See Class,\\n138 S. Ct. at 805. We therefore reiterate our prior holding that\\nClass waived his statutory claims. And to succeed on his\\nconstitutional challenge, it is not enough for Class to show that\\nthe best reading of the law requires proof of scienter. Instead,\\nClass must show that the law is so difficult for the average\\nperson to understand that the Constitution forbids his\\nconviction without such proof.\\n\\n He cannot meet that heavy burden. As we discuss above,\\ndetermining that the ban applies to the Maryland Avenue lot is\\nnot a perfectly straightforward exercise, but citizens are\\npresumed to know the law, and the task of ascertaining the\\n\\f 17\\nboundaries of the Capitol Grounds is not so difficult that\\nClass’s conviction violates the Constitution.\\n\\n IV\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district\\ncourt is affirmed.\\n\\n So ordered.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4418447/\", \"author_raw\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"GRIFFITH"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SRINIVASAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SENTELLE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641194/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Rodney CLASS, Appellant\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-19\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued March 13, 2019 Decided July 19, 2019\n\n No. 15-3015\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n APPELLEE\n\n v.\n\n RODNEY CLASS,\n APPELLANT\n\n\n On Remand from the\n Supreme Court of the United States\n\n\n Leonard R. Powell argued the cause for appellant. With\nhim on the briefs was Jessica Ring Amunson.\n\n Lauren R. Bates, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause\nfor appellee. With her on the briefs were Jesse K. Liu, U.S.\nAttorney, and Elizabeth Trosman, Chrisellen R. Kolb, Jeffrey\nPearlman, and Valinda Jones, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.\n\n Before: GRIFFITH and SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judges, and\nSENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.\n\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH.\n\n GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: Federal law prohibits the\npossession of firearms on the grounds of the United States\n\f 2\nCapitol. 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e). Rodney Class pleaded guilty to\nviolating this law after parking a car containing three guns on\na street near the Capitol. He now argues that, as applied to his\ncase, the law violates the Second Amendment and the Due\nProcess Clause of the Fifth Amendment. These claims lack\nmerit, and we affirm his conviction.\n\n I\n\n In May 2013, Rodney Class drove to the United States\nCapitol in Washington, D.C. He parked his car in one of the\nmany angled parking spots that line the 200 block of Maryland\nAvenue SW (the “Maryland Avenue lot”). That parking spot\nsits just north of the United States Botanic Gardens and\napproximately 1,000 feet from the entrance to the Capitol itself.\nThe street is accessible to the general public, but the parking\nspot Class used is reserved on weekdays (like the Thursday he\nparked there) for employees of the House of Representatives.\nThe parking lot is marked by a sign indicating a permit is\nrequired. Class locked his car and walked inside the Capitol.\nUpon his return, several police officers were peering into his\ncar. One asked Class if he had any weapons inside, and he\nanswered that he did. The officer told Class that it was illegal\nto have weapons on Capitol Grounds and took Class to Capitol\nPolice headquarters. When the car was searched, three firearms\nwere found.\n\n Class was indicted for possession of a firearm while on the\ngrounds of the Capitol, in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(1)\n(the “Capitol Grounds ban”). He filed several motions seeking\nto dismiss the indictment, arguing, inter alia, that the Capitol\nGrounds ban violated his Second Amendment right to bear\narms. The district court denied these motions from the bench,\nholding that the Capitol Grounds ban “does not burden conduct\nprotected by the Second Amendment,” because “laws\n\f 3\nprohibiting individuals from carrying firearms in sensitive\nplaces, such as government buildings, are presumptively\nlawful.” Tr. of Mot. Hr’g at 18, United States v. Class, No.\n1:13-cr-0253-1 (D.D.C. Oct. 27, 2014), Dkt. No. 193. Class\nsubsequently entered an unconditional guilty plea.\n\n Class appealed his conviction on both constitutional and\nstatutory grounds. United States v. Class, No. 15-3015, 2016\nWL 10950032, at *1 (D.C. Cir. July 5, 2016). We affirmed his\nconviction, holding that his unconditional guilty plea waived\nhis right to appeal on those grounds. Id. at *2. The Supreme\nCourt reversed, holding that Class did not waive his\nconstitutional claims because they challenged the\ngovernment’s very power to make his conduct criminal. Class\nv. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798, 805 (2018).\n\n On remand, we now consider the merits of those claims:\nfirst, that the ban as applied to Class’s conduct violates his\nSecond Amendment right to bear arms, and second, that the ban\nviolates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because\nthe law defining the Capitol Grounds is complicated enough\nthat Class lacked notice that he was on them. Because these\nclaims present questions of law, we review them de novo.\nUnited States v. Yakou, 428 F.3d 241, 246 (D.C. Cir. 2005).1\nThe district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231.\nWe have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.\n\n II\n\n\n 1\n The government argued during Class’s first appeal that we\nshould review his due process claim for plain error because he had\nnot raised it in the district court. See Gov’t. Br. 29-30. On remand,\nthe government has not revived this argument, and agrees with Class\nthat our review of his constitutional claims is de novo. See Suppl.\nGov’t. Br. 31.\n\f 4\n To evaluate the constitutionality of firearms regulations,\nwe first determine “whether a particular provision impinges\nupon a right protected by the Second Amendment.” Heller v.\nDistrict of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244, 1252 (D.C.\nCir. 2011). If it does, we ask “whether the provision passes\nmuster under the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.”\nId. Because we conclude that the Capitol Grounds ban does not\n“impinge[] upon a right protected by the Second Amendment,”\nwe do not reach the second question.\n\n The Second Amendment protects the right to own and\ncarry a firearm outside the home. Wrenn v. District of\nColumbia, 864 F.3d 650, 657-58 (D.C. Cir. 2017); see District\nof Columbia v. Heller (Heller I), 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008). But\nthe right is not unlimited. The Supreme Court has been careful\nto note that “longstanding prohibitions” like “laws forbidding\nthe carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and\ngovernment buildings” remain “presumptively lawful.” Heller\nI, 554 U.S. at 626, 627 n.26. A challenger may rebut this\npresumption only by “showing the regulation [has] more than\na de minimis effect upon his right” to bear arms. Heller II, 670\nF.3d at 1253.\n\n With respect to the Capitol itself, there are few, if any,\ngovernment buildings more “sensitive” than the “national\nlegislature at the very seat of its operations.” Jeanette Rankin\nBrigade v. Chief of the Capitol Police, 421 F.2d 1090, 1093 n.3\n(D.C. Cir. 1969). And tragically, gunmen have targeted the\nCapitol before. Francis Clines, Capitol Hill Slayings: The\nOverview; Gunman Invades Capitol, Killing 2 Guards, N.Y.\nTIMES (July 25, 1998),\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/25/us/capitol-hill-slayings-\nthe-overview-gunman-invades-capitol-killing-2-guards.html.\n\f 5\n Class, however, was found with a firearm in the Maryland\nAvenue parking lot, not the Capitol itself. He argues that Heller\nI refers only to bans on possession “in sensitive places like\ngovernment buildings,” and the “Maryland Avenue outdoor\nparking lot, like most of the Capitol Grounds, is certainly not\n‘in a government building.’” Suppl. Class Br. 22. As a result,\nhe claims, the ban is “outside of any presumption of\nconstitutionality that applies only ‘in’ sensitive places.” Id.\nThis argument slices Heller I too thin. The Supreme Court was\ncareful to note that Heller I’s list of “presumptively lawful”\nregulations was not exhaustive, see 554 U.S. at 627 n.26, and\nwe have little trouble concluding that the same security\ninterests which permit regulation of firearms “in” government\nbuildings permit regulation of firearms on the property\nsurrounding those buildings as well. Indeed, Class appears to\nconcede this point elsewhere in his brief, agreeing with the\ngovernment that the White House lawn, for instance, is\n“sensitive” for purposes of the Second Amendment. See Suppl.\nClass Br. 25 n.7.\n\n As for the Maryland Avenue parking lot, although it is not\na government building, we conclude that it is sufficiently\nintegrated with the Capitol for Heller I’s sensitive places\nexception to apply. Accordingly, we conclude that the Second\nAmendment does not give Class the right to bear arms in the\nMaryland Avenue lot. Several facts lead us to this\ndetermination.\n\n First, though it is open to the public, the Maryland Avenue\nparking lot may be used during working hours only by Capitol\nemployees with a permit. This makes the area a potential\nstalking ground for anyone wishing to attack congressional\nstaff and disrupt the operations of Congress. The operation of\nthe national legislature depends not only on the ability of\nmembers of Congress and their staff to conduct business inside\n\f 6\nthe Capitol, but also on their ability to freely and safely travel\nto and from work. The same special security concerns that\napply to the employees while in the Capitol apply when they\nwalk to and from their cars on Capitol property.\n\n Second, the lot is close to the Capitol and legislative office\nbuildings. Class possessed a firearm less than 1,000 feet away\nfrom the entrance to the Capitol, and a block away from the\nRayburn House Office Building. Although there is surely some\nouter bound on the distance Congress could extend the area of\nprotection around the Capitol without raising Second\nAmendment concerns, Congress has not exceeded it here.\n\n Finally, as the owner of the Maryland Avenue lot, the\ngovernment—like private property owners—has the power to\nregulate conduct on its property. See Adderly v. Florida, 385\nU.S. 39, 47 (1966) (observing in the free-speech context that\nthe government, “no less than a private owner of property, has\npower to preserve the property under its control for the use to\nwhich it is lawfully dedicated”); cf. Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Serv.,\n790 F.3d 1121, 1126 (10th Cir. 2015) (observing that when the\nU.S. Postal Service acts “as a proprietor rather than as a\nsovereign, [it] has broad discretion to govern its business\noperations according to the rules it deems appropriate”).\n\n In sum, because the Maryland Avenue lot has been set\naside for the use of government employees, is in close\nproximity to the Capitol building, and is on land owned by the\ngovernment, we consider the lot as a single unit with the\nCapitol building, and conclude that the lot is a “sensitive” place\nwhere firearms prohibitions are presumptively lawful. Accord\nid. at 1125-28 (finding that a post office parking lot is\n“sensitive” for Second Amendment purposes); United States v.\nDorosan, 350 F. App’x 874, 875 (5th Cir. 2009) (same).\n\f 7\n Class raises two counterarguments. First, he tries to\ndistinguish the Maryland Avenue lot from other outdoor\ngovernment property that is protected by security or not\naccessible to the public. In support, he points to language from\nWrenn, where we concluded that the Second Amendment\n“enables self-defense at least against the level of threat\ngenerally faced by those covered by the Amendment:\nresponsible and law-abiding citizens.” 864 F.3d at 664. Class\nargues that the need to have a gun for self-defense is lessened\nin places that are off-limits to the public (like the White House\nlawn) or protected by metal detectors and security guards (like\nthe Capitol building). Because neither is true of the Maryland\nAvenue parking lot, Class contends that law-abiding citizens\nneed to be able to carry firearms for self-defense. Suppl. Class\nReply 4.\n\n Class reads too much into Wrenn. That case raised the\nquestion of whether the right to bear arms extended outside the\nhome and who could exercise that right; this case raises the\nquestion of where outside the home a person authorized to\ncarry a firearm may do so. For this inquiry, we do not look to\nthe “level of threat” posed in a sensitive place. Many “schools”\nand “government buildings”—the paradigmatic “sensitive\nplaces” identified in Heller I—are open to the public, without\nany form of special security or screening. In an unsecured\ngovernment building like a post office or school, the risk of\ncrime may be no different than in any other publicly accessible\nbuilding, yet the Heller I opinion leaves intact bans on firearm\npossession in those places. As one court put it, those places are\n“sensitive” for purposes of the Second Amendment because of\n“the people found there” or the “activities that take place\nthere.” GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia, 764 F. Supp. 2d\n1306, 1319 (M.D. Ga. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir.\n2012).\n\f 8\n Next, Class contends that because the Capitol Grounds ban\nwas only extended to the Maryland Avenue parking lot in 1980,\nwith respect to that lot, the ban is not the sort of “longstanding”\nregulation that is “presumptively lawful” under Heller I. See\nSuppl. Class Br. 25-26. It is true, as we explained in Heller II,\nthat “[a] requirement of newer vintage is not . . . presumed to\nbe valid.” 670 F.3d at 1253. Class’s argument, however,\nmisinterprets what it means for a regulation to be\n“longstanding.” Under Class’s reading, the ban in that location\nmust have been longstanding. But this makes little sense when\nviewed through the language of Heller I, which spoke generally\nof “schools” and “government buildings.” 554 U.S. at 626-27.\nThe relevant inquiry is whether a particular type of regulation\nhas been a “longstanding” exception to the right to bear arms.\nSee Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1253-56. A new post office is no less\na government building than one built in 1789, just as a new\nwing of the Capitol is still part of that building.\n\n Because the Maryland Avenue parking lot is a sensitive\nplace, the ban on carrying firearms there is “presumptively\nlawful.” Heller I, 554 U.S. at 627 n.26. To rebut that\npresumption, Class must show that the ban has “more than a de\nminimis effect upon his right” to bear arms. Heller II, 670 F.3d\nat 1253. He cannot. Class contends that the Capitol Grounds\nban prevents him from exercising his right to self-defense\nwhile moving about the District, but we rejected a similar\nargument in Wrenn, observing:\n\n [B]ans on carrying only in small pockets of the outside\n world (e.g., near “sensitive” sites) impose only lightly on\n most people’s right to “bear arms” in public. As Judge\n Posner writes: “[W]hen a state bans guns merely in\n particular places, such as public schools, a person can\n preserve an undiminished right of self-defense by not\n entering those places.”\n\f 9\n\n864 F.3d at 662 (quoting Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 940\n(7th Cir. 2012)) (citation omitted). The Maryland Avenue\nparking lot is just the kind of “small pocket of the outside\nworld” where a ban imposes only “lightly” on the right to carry\na weapon in the District of Columbia. If Class “wanted to carry\na gun in his car but abide by the ban,” he could have done so\nbut parked elsewhere. See Dorosan, 350 F. App’x. at 876.\n\n Class argues that the Capitol Grounds, which include\nalmost 300 acres of the District, are not a small pocket of the\noutside world, and claims that the ban on possession makes it\n“practically impossible to travel to other areas around the\nCapitol with a firearm for self-defense.” Suppl. Class Reply 8.\nWe see no such problem. While this portion of Maryland\nAvenue could be used to travel from one part of the District to\nanother, nothing about the ban prevents a person who wishes\nto carry a firearm for self-defense from taking an alternate route\nthat avoids the Capitol Grounds.\n\n Class counters by arguing that the boundaries of the\nCapitol Grounds are not publicly posted and are therefore\n“indistinguishable from nearby areas where firearms are\npermitted.” Suppl. Class Br. 14. As a result, he claims that the\nfear of violating the ban by accident impinges on his ability to\ncarry a firearm for self-defense even in areas of the District that\nare not technically covered by the ban. To the extent that he\ncomplains about lack of notice, we address that issue in our\ndiscussion of his due process claim. For purposes of his Second\nAmendment claim, the Maryland Avenue lot is\n“distinguishable” from other nearby areas because Congress\nhas set apart the Capitol Grounds from the rest of the district\nfor the use of the national legislature.\n\f 10\n III\n\n Class next argues that he lacked notice his conduct was\ncriminal because of how difficult it is to determine the\nboundaries of the Capitol Grounds. Couching his challenge in\nterms of vagueness, Class suggests that absent such notice, his\nconviction violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth\nAmendment. We disagree.\n\n The government violates the Due Process Clause when it\n“tak[es] away someone’s life, liberty, or property under a\ncriminal law so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair\nnotice of the conduct it punishes, or so standardless that it\ninvites arbitrary enforcement.” Johnson v. United States, 135\nS. Ct. 2551, 2556 (2015). Most vagueness challenges involve\nassertions of “indeterminacy,” in which the defendant claims\nthat a criminal statute is so “shapeless” that even a person\naware of the law cannot know what conduct is prohibited. Id.\nat 2558, 2560. The text of the Capitol Grounds ban, in contrast,\nis quite clear: “An individual . . . may not carry on or have\nreadily accessible . . . on the Grounds or in any of the Capitol\nBuildings a firearm.” 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e). Indeed, Class does\nnot—and could not—argue that any of these terms are\n“indeterminate” or “shapeless.” An ordinary citizen would\nreadily understand from the text of the statute that he may not\ncarry a firearm on the Capitol Grounds or inside the Capitol.\nNor does Class argue that the boundaries of the Capitol\nGrounds are “shapeless.” The metes and bounds of the Capitol\nGrounds are precisely defined: with a map of the city and the\nappropriate legal references, it can be determined with\ncertainty that the 200 block of Maryland Avenue SW is subject\nto the ban.\n\n Confronted with a clear statute, Class takes a different\napproach. He argues that, regardless of the precision of the text,\n\f 11\nthe structure of the statute and lack of signage identifying the\nMaryland Avenue lot as a restricted area makes it “exceedingly\ndifficult” for an ordinary citizen to actually figure out that the\nparking lot is part of the Capitol Grounds. Suppl. Class Br. 33.\nSo difficult, according to Class, that an armed person in the lot\nlacks fair notice that his conduct is prohibited. In support of his\nposition, Class relies on the circuitous route an individual must\ntake to determine whether the lot is part of the Capitol Grounds.\nFirst, a person must look to the U.S. Code, which defines the\ngrounds by reference to a 1946 map on file in the Office of the\nSurveyor of the District of Columbia. 40 U.S.C. § 5102. The\nmap does not contain the Maryland Avenue lot. However, the\nstatute goes on to say that the boundaries of the Grounds\n“includ[e] all additions added by law” after the map was\nrecorded. Id. So the second step a person must take is to find\nPublic Law 96-432, which in 1980 expanded the Grounds to\ninclude “that portion of Maryland Avenue Southwest from the\nwest curb of First Street Southwest to the east curb of Third\nStreet Southwest.” Act to Amend the Act of July 31, 1946, as\namended, Relating to the United States Capitol Grounds, and\nfor Other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 96-432, (5), 94 Stat. 1851,\n1851 (1980). The Maryland Avenue lot falls squarely within\nthis area, but Class argues that the combination of these steps\nand lack of other identifying features puts determining the\nboundaries of the Capitol Grounds “beyond the ken of someone\nof ordinary intelligence and diligence.” Suppl. Class Br. 34.\n\n We disagree. It is a bedrock principle that “[c]itizens are\ncharged with generally knowing the law.” United States v.\nBronstein, 849 F.3d 1101, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Fair notice\nusually requires a legislature to “do nothing more than enact\nand publish the law, and afford the citizenry a reasonable\nopportunity to familiarize itself with its terms and to comply.”\nId. (quoting Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516, 532 (1982)).\nAlthough determining that the ban applies to the Maryland\n\f 12\nAvenue lot is not completely straightforward, we cannot say\nthat the law is so difficult to understand that it violates the\nConstitution, for “perfect clarity and precise guidance have\nnever been required even of regulations that restrict [protected]\nactivity.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 794\n(1989).\n\n The statutory provisions at issue here were enacted and\npublished decades ago. See Act of Oct. 20, 1967, Pub. L. No.\n90-108, 81 Stat. 275, 276 (banning firearms on Capitol\nGrounds); Pub. L. No. 96-432 (extending Grounds to include\nthe Maryland Avenue lot). The laws do not use complicated\nphrasing or specialized vocabulary, referring only to the names\nof streets that appear on road signs and which can be located\non widely available maps of the District. And though it is true\nthat the relevant provisions of the U.S. Code do not themselves\nreference the Maryland Avenue lot, Class points to no case in\nwhich a court has held that due process turns on whether a law\nwas codified or merely enacted and published as a Public Law.\nClass’s argument has even less force when considered\nalongside the version of the U.S. Code published by the\nGovernment Printing Office, which includes as an appendix to\nthe text of 40 U.S.C. § 5104 a section entitled “Changes in\nUnited States Capitol Grounds.” 40 U.S.C. § 5104 (2012). That\nsection contains the text of enactments altering the boundaries\nof the Grounds, including the 1980 amendment that added the\nMaryland Avenue lot. Id.\n\n The only case that Class identifies in which a court has\nstruck down a law due to the difficulty of determining\ngeographic boundaries is Doe v. Snyder, which involved a\nstatute that prohibited registered sex-offenders from coming\nwithin 1,000 feet of “school property” used for “educational\ninstruction” or “sports or other recreational activities.” 101 F.\nSupp. 3d 672, 682-83 (E.D. Mich. 2015). The district court\n\f 13\nconcluded that the law violated due process because it was\nunclear how to measure the 1,000 feet (i.e., from the entrance\nto the building or from the edge of school property lines) and it\nwould be “difficult for . . . registrants to parse through school-\nowned real property [records]” to determine which parcels\nwere used for covered activities. Id. at 682-85. We are of course\nnot bound by the reasoning of that district court, but in any\nevent, Doe is easily distinguishable. The Capitol Grounds are\ndefined by a map and a specific list of intersections and streets\nthat are part of the public law. A citizen concerned about\nviolating the ban need not make detailed measurements, sort\nthrough voluminous real estate records, or speculate about the\nuses of various parcels of land. He must simply, as is the case\nwith any criminal law, open the statute book—even if here he\nmay need two.\n\n This case more closely resembles Klein v. San Diego\nCounty, 463 F.3d 1029, 1039 (9th Cir. 2006), in which the\nNinth Circuit upheld a ban on picketing within 300 feet of a\ndwelling. That court conceded that the ordinance might be\nunconstitutional “if it were impossible for the picketers to\ndetermine the 300-foot boundary with any precision.” Id. But\nmaps showing where dwellings were located were available in\nthe County Tax Assessor’s office, and a “would-be picketer,\nwith the lot map in hand,” could “estimate the boundary with\nsome level of precision.” Id. Indeed, the Capitol Grounds ban\nasks even less of a would-be visitor to the Capitol, because no\nestimation or measurement is required.\n\n Class nevertheless resists the conclusion that the law\nprovides sufficient notice. He argues that even if the Capitol\nGrounds ban is not impossible to understand, a heightened\nlevel of review is applicable here and requires us to strike down\nthe law. He suggests this is so because “[t]he degree of\nvagueness that the Constitution tolerates—as well as the\n\f 14\nrelative importance of fair notice and fair enforcement—\ndepends in part on the nature of the enactment.” Village of\nHoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S.\n489, 498 (1982). Class is correct that our analysis must be more\nsearching in cases in which a law imposes criminal penalties,\n“threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected\nrights,” and lacks a scienter requirement. Id. at 498-99; see\nSuppl. Class Br. 33. Class is also right that all three of those\nfactors triggering additional skepticism are present here. First,\nthe Capitol Grounds ban imposes significant criminal\npenalties. 40 U.S.C. § 5109. Second, the ban at least implicates\nthe right to bear arms, even if it does not violate the Second\nAmendment. Cf. N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Cuomo,\n804 F.3d 242, 265 (2d Cir. 2015) (applying a “more stringent”\nvagueness standard to a gun regulation).\n\n The third factor “affecting the clarity that the Constitution\ndemands of a law” is whether a statute possesses a scienter\nrequirement, an inquiry that, at least in this appeal, needs some\nexplanation. Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 499. “Scienter” is\n“the degree of knowledge sufficient to ‘mak[e] a person legally\nresponsible for the consequences of his or her act or\nomission.’” Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2195\n(2019) (quoting BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1547 (10th ed.\n2014)). Here, the district court interpreted the Capitol Grounds\nban as requiring knowledge as to the possession of a firearm,\nbut not as to presence on the Capitol Grounds. 2 According to\nClass, the fact that an armed person who unknowingly wanders\nonto the grounds could violate the statute counsels against\nconcluding that the law provides sufficient notice of the\nconduct it proscribes.\n\n 2\n As we discuss in greater detail below, we are not confronted\nwith the question of whether the district court’s interpretation of the\nstatute was correct.\n\f 15\n\n We agree that the district court’s determination that the\nCapitol Grounds ban lacks a scienter requirement means “that\nthe Constitution tolerates” a lesser “degree of vagueness” than\nwould be permissible had the court reached the contrary\nconclusion. Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 498. Indeed, we have\nrelied on the presence of a scienter requirement to uphold laws\nin the face of vagueness challenges. See, e.g., Wash.\nMobilization Comm. v. Cullinane, 566 F.2d 107, 118 (D.C. Cir.\n1977) (holding that a regulation prohibiting the crossing of a\npolice line comports with the Due Process Clause so long as\n“the location of the line is clearly indicated and if adequate\nnotice is given”); accord United States v. Nieves-Castano, 480\nF.3d 597, 603-04 (1st Cir. 2007).\n\n The question on appeal, however, is not whether the more\nsearching standard from Hoffman Estates applies. It does. The\nquestion on appeal is whether Class’s conviction violates the\nDue Process Clause because of how vague the statute is. It does\nnot. As we noted above, the steps necessary for determining the\nspecial status of the Maryland Avenue lot are not the most\nstraightforward. But the statute is sufficiently clear to “give [a]\nperson of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to\nknow what is prohibited.” Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 498\n(quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09\n(1972)). That is ultimately what the Due Process Clause\nrequires, and that standard has been met. Cf. Klein, 463 F.3d at\n1039 (upholding against a vagueness challenge a picketing ban\ndespite the lack of a scienter requirement).\n\n We note in closing that the lack of a scienter requirement\nin the ban might raise issues of statutory construction. But\nClass has waived those arguments. In two cases, including one\ndecided very recently, the Supreme Court has concluded that\nrestrictions on the possession of firearms require proof of\n\f 16\nscienter. Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2200 (“[T]he Government must\nprove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm\nand that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of\npersons barred from possessing a firearm.”); Staples v.\nUnited States, 511 U.S. 600, 619 (1994) (“[T]o obtain a\nconviction, the Government should have been required to\nprove that [the defendant] knew of the features of his [gun] that\nbrought it within the scope of the [prohibition].”). The parallel\nis clear: Rehaif concerned a ban on possession of a gun by a\nperson with a particular immigration status; Staples concerned\na ban on possession of a particular type of gun; and this case\nconcerns a ban on possession of a gun in a particular place.\n\n But those cases resolved only “question[s] of statutory\nconstruction,” not the constitutional right to due process.\nStaples, 511 U.S. at 604; see Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2194. That\nis, Staples and Rehaif both concluded that Congress had not\nintended to impose criminal penalties for possession of a gun\nwithout proof of scienter; neither case addressed whether or not\nCongress lacks the power to impose such penalties. And here,\nthe Supreme Court held only that the claims which survived\nClass’s guilty plea were those that “challenge the\nGovernment’s power to criminalize” his conduct. See Class,\n138 S. Ct. at 805. We therefore reiterate our prior holding that\nClass waived his statutory claims. And to succeed on his\nconstitutional challenge, it is not enough for Class to show that\nthe best reading of the law requires proof of scienter. Instead,\nClass must show that the law is so difficult for the average\nperson to understand that the Constitution forbids his\nconviction without such proof.\n\n He cannot meet that heavy burden. As we discuss above,\ndetermining that the ban applies to the Maryland Avenue lot is\nnot a perfectly straightforward exercise, but citizens are\npresumed to know the law, and the task of ascertaining the\n\f 17\nboundaries of the Capitol Grounds is not so difficult that\nClass’s conviction violates the Constitution.\n\n IV\n\n For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district\ncourt is affirmed.\n\n So ordered.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Rodney CLASS, Appellant\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-19\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued March 13, 2019 Decided July 19, 2019\\n\\n No. 15-3015\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n APPELLEE\\n\\n v.\\n\\n RODNEY CLASS,\\n APPELLANT\\n\\n\\n On Remand from the\\n Supreme Court of the United States\\n\\n\\n Leonard R. Powell argued the cause for appellant. With\\nhim on the briefs was Jessica Ring Amunson.\\n\\n Lauren R. Bates, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause\\nfor appellee. With her on the briefs were Jesse K. Liu, U.S.\\nAttorney, and Elizabeth Trosman, Chrisellen R. Kolb, Jeffrey\\nPearlman, and Valinda Jones, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.\\n\\n Before: GRIFFITH and SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judges, and\\nSENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH.\\n\\n GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: Federal law prohibits the\\npossession of firearms on the grounds of the United States\\n\\f 2\\nCapitol. 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e). Rodney Class pleaded guilty to\\nviolating this law after parking a car containing three guns on\\na street near the Capitol. He now argues that, as applied to his\\ncase, the law violates the Second Amendment and the Due\\nProcess Clause of the Fifth Amendment. These claims lack\\nmerit, and we affirm his conviction.\\n\\n I\\n\\n In May 2013, Rodney Class drove to the United States\\nCapitol in Washington, D.C. He parked his car in one of the\\nmany angled parking spots that line the 200 block of Maryland\\nAvenue SW (the “Maryland Avenue lot”). That parking spot\\nsits just north of the United States Botanic Gardens and\\napproximately 1,000 feet from the entrance to the Capitol itself.\\nThe street is accessible to the general public, but the parking\\nspot Class used is reserved on weekdays (like the Thursday he\\nparked there) for employees of the House of Representatives.\\nThe parking lot is marked by a sign indicating a permit is\\nrequired. Class locked his car and walked inside the Capitol.\\nUpon his return, several police officers were peering into his\\ncar. One asked Class if he had any weapons inside, and he\\nanswered that he did. The officer told Class that it was illegal\\nto have weapons on Capitol Grounds and took Class to Capitol\\nPolice headquarters. When the car was searched, three firearms\\nwere found.\\n\\n Class was indicted for possession of a firearm while on the\\ngrounds of the Capitol, in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(1)\\n(the “Capitol Grounds ban”). He filed several motions seeking\\nto dismiss the indictment, arguing, inter alia, that the Capitol\\nGrounds ban violated his Second Amendment right to bear\\narms. The district court denied these motions from the bench,\\nholding that the Capitol Grounds ban “does not burden conduct\\nprotected by the Second Amendment,” because “laws\\n\\f 3\\nprohibiting individuals from carrying firearms in sensitive\\nplaces, such as government buildings, are presumptively\\nlawful.” Tr. of Mot. Hr’g at 18, United States v. Class, No.\\n1:13-cr-0253-1 (D.D.C. Oct. 27, 2014), Dkt. No. 193. Class\\nsubsequently entered an unconditional guilty plea.\\n\\n Class appealed his conviction on both constitutional and\\nstatutory grounds. United States v. Class, No. 15-3015, 2016\\nWL 10950032, at *1 (D.C. Cir. July 5, 2016). We affirmed his\\nconviction, holding that his unconditional guilty plea waived\\nhis right to appeal on those grounds. Id. at *2. The Supreme\\nCourt reversed, holding that Class did not waive his\\nconstitutional claims because they challenged the\\ngovernment’s very power to make his conduct criminal. Class\\nv. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798, 805 (2018).\\n\\n On remand, we now consider the merits of those claims:\\nfirst, that the ban as applied to Class’s conduct violates his\\nSecond Amendment right to bear arms, and second, that the ban\\nviolates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because\\nthe law defining the Capitol Grounds is complicated enough\\nthat Class lacked notice that he was on them. Because these\\nclaims present questions of law, we review them de novo.\\nUnited States v. Yakou, 428 F.3d 241, 246 (D.C. Cir. 2005).1\\nThe district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231.\\nWe have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.\\n\\n II\\n\\n\\n 1\\n The government argued during Class’s first appeal that we\\nshould review his due process claim for plain error because he had\\nnot raised it in the district court. See Gov’t. Br. 29-30. On remand,\\nthe government has not revived this argument, and agrees with Class\\nthat our review of his constitutional claims is de novo. See Suppl.\\nGov’t. Br. 31.\\n\\f 4\\n To evaluate the constitutionality of firearms regulations,\\nwe first determine “whether a particular provision impinges\\nupon a right protected by the Second Amendment.” Heller v.\\nDistrict of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244, 1252 (D.C.\\nCir. 2011). If it does, we ask “whether the provision passes\\nmuster under the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.”\\nId. Because we conclude that the Capitol Grounds ban does not\\n“impinge[] upon a right protected by the Second Amendment,”\\nwe do not reach the second question.\\n\\n The Second Amendment protects the right to own and\\ncarry a firearm outside the home. Wrenn v. District of\\nColumbia, 864 F.3d 650, 657-58 (D.C. Cir. 2017); see District\\nof Columbia v. Heller (Heller I), 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008). But\\nthe right is not unlimited. The Supreme Court has been careful\\nto note that “longstanding prohibitions” like “laws forbidding\\nthe carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and\\ngovernment buildings” remain “presumptively lawful.” Heller\\nI, 554 U.S. at 626, 627 n.26. A challenger may rebut this\\npresumption only by “showing the regulation [has] more than\\na de minimis effect upon his right” to bear arms. Heller II, 670\\nF.3d at 1253.\\n\\n With respect to the Capitol itself, there are few, if any,\\ngovernment buildings more “sensitive” than the “national\\nlegislature at the very seat of its operations.” Jeanette Rankin\\nBrigade v. Chief of the Capitol Police, 421 F.2d 1090, 1093 n.3\\n(D.C. Cir. 1969). And tragically, gunmen have targeted the\\nCapitol before. Francis Clines, Capitol Hill Slayings: The\\nOverview; Gunman Invades Capitol, Killing 2 Guards, N.Y.\\nTIMES (July 25, 1998),\\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/25/us/capitol-hill-slayings-\\nthe-overview-gunman-invades-capitol-killing-2-guards.html.\\n\\f 5\\n Class, however, was found with a firearm in the Maryland\\nAvenue parking lot, not the Capitol itself. He argues that Heller\\nI refers only to bans on possession “in sensitive places like\\ngovernment buildings,” and the “Maryland Avenue outdoor\\nparking lot, like most of the Capitol Grounds, is certainly not\\n‘in a government building.’” Suppl. Class Br. 22. As a result,\\nhe claims, the ban is “outside of any presumption of\\nconstitutionality that applies only ‘in’ sensitive places.” Id.\\nThis argument slices Heller I too thin. The Supreme Court was\\ncareful to note that Heller I’s list of “presumptively lawful”\\nregulations was not exhaustive, see 554 U.S. at 627 n.26, and\\nwe have little trouble concluding that the same security\\ninterests which permit regulation of firearms “in” government\\nbuildings permit regulation of firearms on the property\\nsurrounding those buildings as well. Indeed, Class appears to\\nconcede this point elsewhere in his brief, agreeing with the\\ngovernment that the White House lawn, for instance, is\\n“sensitive” for purposes of the Second Amendment. See Suppl.\\nClass Br. 25 n.7.\\n\\n As for the Maryland Avenue parking lot, although it is not\\na government building, we conclude that it is sufficiently\\nintegrated with the Capitol for Heller I’s sensitive places\\nexception to apply. Accordingly, we conclude that the Second\\nAmendment does not give Class the right to bear arms in the\\nMaryland Avenue lot. Several facts lead us to this\\ndetermination.\\n\\n First, though it is open to the public, the Maryland Avenue\\nparking lot may be used during working hours only by Capitol\\nemployees with a permit. This makes the area a potential\\nstalking ground for anyone wishing to attack congressional\\nstaff and disrupt the operations of Congress. The operation of\\nthe national legislature depends not only on the ability of\\nmembers of Congress and their staff to conduct business inside\\n\\f 6\\nthe Capitol, but also on their ability to freely and safely travel\\nto and from work. The same special security concerns that\\napply to the employees while in the Capitol apply when they\\nwalk to and from their cars on Capitol property.\\n\\n Second, the lot is close to the Capitol and legislative office\\nbuildings. Class possessed a firearm less than 1,000 feet away\\nfrom the entrance to the Capitol, and a block away from the\\nRayburn House Office Building. Although there is surely some\\nouter bound on the distance Congress could extend the area of\\nprotection around the Capitol without raising Second\\nAmendment concerns, Congress has not exceeded it here.\\n\\n Finally, as the owner of the Maryland Avenue lot, the\\ngovernment—like private property owners—has the power to\\nregulate conduct on its property. See Adderly v. Florida, 385\\nU.S. 39, 47 (1966) (observing in the free-speech context that\\nthe government, “no less than a private owner of property, has\\npower to preserve the property under its control for the use to\\nwhich it is lawfully dedicated”); cf. Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Serv.,\\n790 F.3d 1121, 1126 (10th Cir. 2015) (observing that when the\\nU.S. Postal Service acts “as a proprietor rather than as a\\nsovereign, [it] has broad discretion to govern its business\\noperations according to the rules it deems appropriate”).\\n\\n In sum, because the Maryland Avenue lot has been set\\naside for the use of government employees, is in close\\nproximity to the Capitol building, and is on land owned by the\\ngovernment, we consider the lot as a single unit with the\\nCapitol building, and conclude that the lot is a “sensitive” place\\nwhere firearms prohibitions are presumptively lawful. Accord\\nid. at 1125-28 (finding that a post office parking lot is\\n“sensitive” for Second Amendment purposes); United States v.\\nDorosan, 350 F. App’x 874, 875 (5th Cir. 2009) (same).\\n\\f 7\\n Class raises two counterarguments. First, he tries to\\ndistinguish the Maryland Avenue lot from other outdoor\\ngovernment property that is protected by security or not\\naccessible to the public. In support, he points to language from\\nWrenn, where we concluded that the Second Amendment\\n“enables self-defense at least against the level of threat\\ngenerally faced by those covered by the Amendment:\\nresponsible and law-abiding citizens.” 864 F.3d at 664. Class\\nargues that the need to have a gun for self-defense is lessened\\nin places that are off-limits to the public (like the White House\\nlawn) or protected by metal detectors and security guards (like\\nthe Capitol building). Because neither is true of the Maryland\\nAvenue parking lot, Class contends that law-abiding citizens\\nneed to be able to carry firearms for self-defense. Suppl. Class\\nReply 4.\\n\\n Class reads too much into Wrenn. That case raised the\\nquestion of whether the right to bear arms extended outside the\\nhome and who could exercise that right; this case raises the\\nquestion of where outside the home a person authorized to\\ncarry a firearm may do so. For this inquiry, we do not look to\\nthe “level of threat” posed in a sensitive place. Many “schools”\\nand “government buildings”—the paradigmatic “sensitive\\nplaces” identified in Heller I—are open to the public, without\\nany form of special security or screening. In an unsecured\\ngovernment building like a post office or school, the risk of\\ncrime may be no different than in any other publicly accessible\\nbuilding, yet the Heller I opinion leaves intact bans on firearm\\npossession in those places. As one court put it, those places are\\n“sensitive” for purposes of the Second Amendment because of\\n“the people found there” or the “activities that take place\\nthere.” GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia, 764 F. Supp. 2d\\n1306, 1319 (M.D. Ga. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir.\\n2012).\\n\\f 8\\n Next, Class contends that because the Capitol Grounds ban\\nwas only extended to the Maryland Avenue parking lot in 1980,\\nwith respect to that lot, the ban is not the sort of “longstanding”\\nregulation that is “presumptively lawful” under Heller I. See\\nSuppl. Class Br. 25-26. It is true, as we explained in Heller II,\\nthat “[a] requirement of newer vintage is not . . . presumed to\\nbe valid.” 670 F.3d at 1253. Class’s argument, however,\\nmisinterprets what it means for a regulation to be\\n“longstanding.” Under Class’s reading, the ban in that location\\nmust have been longstanding. But this makes little sense when\\nviewed through the language of Heller I, which spoke generally\\nof “schools” and “government buildings.” 554 U.S. at 626-27.\\nThe relevant inquiry is whether a particular type of regulation\\nhas been a “longstanding” exception to the right to bear arms.\\nSee Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1253-56. A new post office is no less\\na government building than one built in 1789, just as a new\\nwing of the Capitol is still part of that building.\\n\\n Because the Maryland Avenue parking lot is a sensitive\\nplace, the ban on carrying firearms there is “presumptively\\nlawful.” Heller I, 554 U.S. at 627 n.26. To rebut that\\npresumption, Class must show that the ban has “more than a de\\nminimis effect upon his right” to bear arms. Heller II, 670 F.3d\\nat 1253. He cannot. Class contends that the Capitol Grounds\\nban prevents him from exercising his right to self-defense\\nwhile moving about the District, but we rejected a similar\\nargument in Wrenn, observing:\\n\\n [B]ans on carrying only in small pockets of the outside\\n world (e.g., near “sensitive” sites) impose only lightly on\\n most people’s right to “bear arms” in public. As Judge\\n Posner writes: “[W]hen a state bans guns merely in\\n particular places, such as public schools, a person can\\n preserve an undiminished right of self-defense by not\\n entering those places.”\\n\\f 9\\n\\n864 F.3d at 662 (quoting Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 940\\n(7th Cir. 2012)) (citation omitted). The Maryland Avenue\\nparking lot is just the kind of “small pocket of the outside\\nworld” where a ban imposes only “lightly” on the right to carry\\na weapon in the District of Columbia. If Class “wanted to carry\\na gun in his car but abide by the ban,” he could have done so\\nbut parked elsewhere. See Dorosan, 350 F. App’x. at 876.\\n\\n Class argues that the Capitol Grounds, which include\\nalmost 300 acres of the District, are not a small pocket of the\\noutside world, and claims that the ban on possession makes it\\n“practically impossible to travel to other areas around the\\nCapitol with a firearm for self-defense.” Suppl. Class Reply 8.\\nWe see no such problem. While this portion of Maryland\\nAvenue could be used to travel from one part of the District to\\nanother, nothing about the ban prevents a person who wishes\\nto carry a firearm for self-defense from taking an alternate route\\nthat avoids the Capitol Grounds.\\n\\n Class counters by arguing that the boundaries of the\\nCapitol Grounds are not publicly posted and are therefore\\n“indistinguishable from nearby areas where firearms are\\npermitted.” Suppl. Class Br. 14. As a result, he claims that the\\nfear of violating the ban by accident impinges on his ability to\\ncarry a firearm for self-defense even in areas of the District that\\nare not technically covered by the ban. To the extent that he\\ncomplains about lack of notice, we address that issue in our\\ndiscussion of his due process claim. For purposes of his Second\\nAmendment claim, the Maryland Avenue lot is\\n“distinguishable” from other nearby areas because Congress\\nhas set apart the Capitol Grounds from the rest of the district\\nfor the use of the national legislature.\\n\\f 10\\n III\\n\\n Class next argues that he lacked notice his conduct was\\ncriminal because of how difficult it is to determine the\\nboundaries of the Capitol Grounds. Couching his challenge in\\nterms of vagueness, Class suggests that absent such notice, his\\nconviction violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth\\nAmendment. We disagree.\\n\\n The government violates the Due Process Clause when it\\n“tak[es] away someone’s life, liberty, or property under a\\ncriminal law so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair\\nnotice of the conduct it punishes, or so standardless that it\\ninvites arbitrary enforcement.” Johnson v. United States, 135\\nS. Ct. 2551, 2556 (2015). Most vagueness challenges involve\\nassertions of “indeterminacy,” in which the defendant claims\\nthat a criminal statute is so “shapeless” that even a person\\naware of the law cannot know what conduct is prohibited. Id.\\nat 2558, 2560. The text of the Capitol Grounds ban, in contrast,\\nis quite clear: “An individual . . . may not carry on or have\\nreadily accessible . . . on the Grounds or in any of the Capitol\\nBuildings a firearm.” 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e). Indeed, Class does\\nnot—and could not—argue that any of these terms are\\n“indeterminate” or “shapeless.” An ordinary citizen would\\nreadily understand from the text of the statute that he may not\\ncarry a firearm on the Capitol Grounds or inside the Capitol.\\nNor does Class argue that the boundaries of the Capitol\\nGrounds are “shapeless.” The metes and bounds of the Capitol\\nGrounds are precisely defined: with a map of the city and the\\nappropriate legal references, it can be determined with\\ncertainty that the 200 block of Maryland Avenue SW is subject\\nto the ban.\\n\\n Confronted with a clear statute, Class takes a different\\napproach. He argues that, regardless of the precision of the text,\\n\\f 11\\nthe structure of the statute and lack of signage identifying the\\nMaryland Avenue lot as a restricted area makes it “exceedingly\\ndifficult” for an ordinary citizen to actually figure out that the\\nparking lot is part of the Capitol Grounds. Suppl. Class Br. 33.\\nSo difficult, according to Class, that an armed person in the lot\\nlacks fair notice that his conduct is prohibited. In support of his\\nposition, Class relies on the circuitous route an individual must\\ntake to determine whether the lot is part of the Capitol Grounds.\\nFirst, a person must look to the U.S. Code, which defines the\\ngrounds by reference to a 1946 map on file in the Office of the\\nSurveyor of the District of Columbia. 40 U.S.C. § 5102. The\\nmap does not contain the Maryland Avenue lot. However, the\\nstatute goes on to say that the boundaries of the Grounds\\n“includ[e] all additions added by law” after the map was\\nrecorded. Id. So the second step a person must take is to find\\nPublic Law 96-432, which in 1980 expanded the Grounds to\\ninclude “that portion of Maryland Avenue Southwest from the\\nwest curb of First Street Southwest to the east curb of Third\\nStreet Southwest.” Act to Amend the Act of July 31, 1946, as\\namended, Relating to the United States Capitol Grounds, and\\nfor Other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 96-432, (5), 94 Stat. 1851,\\n1851 (1980). The Maryland Avenue lot falls squarely within\\nthis area, but Class argues that the combination of these steps\\nand lack of other identifying features puts determining the\\nboundaries of the Capitol Grounds “beyond the ken of someone\\nof ordinary intelligence and diligence.” Suppl. Class Br. 34.\\n\\n We disagree. It is a bedrock principle that “[c]itizens are\\ncharged with generally knowing the law.” United States v.\\nBronstein, 849 F.3d 1101, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Fair notice\\nusually requires a legislature to “do nothing more than enact\\nand publish the law, and afford the citizenry a reasonable\\nopportunity to familiarize itself with its terms and to comply.”\\nId. (quoting Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516, 532 (1982)).\\nAlthough determining that the ban applies to the Maryland\\n\\f 12\\nAvenue lot is not completely straightforward, we cannot say\\nthat the law is so difficult to understand that it violates the\\nConstitution, for “perfect clarity and precise guidance have\\nnever been required even of regulations that restrict [protected]\\nactivity.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 794\\n(1989).\\n\\n The statutory provisions at issue here were enacted and\\npublished decades ago. See Act of Oct. 20, 1967, Pub. L. No.\\n90-108, 81 Stat. 275, 276 (banning firearms on Capitol\\nGrounds); Pub. L. No. 96-432 (extending Grounds to include\\nthe Maryland Avenue lot). The laws do not use complicated\\nphrasing or specialized vocabulary, referring only to the names\\nof streets that appear on road signs and which can be located\\non widely available maps of the District. And though it is true\\nthat the relevant provisions of the U.S. Code do not themselves\\nreference the Maryland Avenue lot, Class points to no case in\\nwhich a court has held that due process turns on whether a law\\nwas codified or merely enacted and published as a Public Law.\\nClass’s argument has even less force when considered\\nalongside the version of the U.S. Code published by the\\nGovernment Printing Office, which includes as an appendix to\\nthe text of 40 U.S.C. § 5104 a section entitled “Changes in\\nUnited States Capitol Grounds.” 40 U.S.C. § 5104 (2012). That\\nsection contains the text of enactments altering the boundaries\\nof the Grounds, including the 1980 amendment that added the\\nMaryland Avenue lot. Id.\\n\\n The only case that Class identifies in which a court has\\nstruck down a law due to the difficulty of determining\\ngeographic boundaries is Doe v. Snyder, which involved a\\nstatute that prohibited registered sex-offenders from coming\\nwithin 1,000 feet of “school property” used for “educational\\ninstruction” or “sports or other recreational activities.” 101 F.\\nSupp. 3d 672, 682-83 (E.D. Mich. 2015). The district court\\n\\f 13\\nconcluded that the law violated due process because it was\\nunclear how to measure the 1,000 feet (i.e., from the entrance\\nto the building or from the edge of school property lines) and it\\nwould be “difficult for . . . registrants to parse through school-\\nowned real property [records]” to determine which parcels\\nwere used for covered activities. Id. at 682-85. We are of course\\nnot bound by the reasoning of that district court, but in any\\nevent, Doe is easily distinguishable. The Capitol Grounds are\\ndefined by a map and a specific list of intersections and streets\\nthat are part of the public law. A citizen concerned about\\nviolating the ban need not make detailed measurements, sort\\nthrough voluminous real estate records, or speculate about the\\nuses of various parcels of land. He must simply, as is the case\\nwith any criminal law, open the statute book—even if here he\\nmay need two.\\n\\n This case more closely resembles Klein v. San Diego\\nCounty, 463 F.3d 1029, 1039 (9th Cir. 2006), in which the\\nNinth Circuit upheld a ban on picketing within 300 feet of a\\ndwelling. That court conceded that the ordinance might be\\nunconstitutional “if it were impossible for the picketers to\\ndetermine the 300-foot boundary with any precision.” Id. But\\nmaps showing where dwellings were located were available in\\nthe County Tax Assessor’s office, and a “would-be picketer,\\nwith the lot map in hand,” could “estimate the boundary with\\nsome level of precision.” Id. Indeed, the Capitol Grounds ban\\nasks even less of a would-be visitor to the Capitol, because no\\nestimation or measurement is required.\\n\\n Class nevertheless resists the conclusion that the law\\nprovides sufficient notice. He argues that even if the Capitol\\nGrounds ban is not impossible to understand, a heightened\\nlevel of review is applicable here and requires us to strike down\\nthe law. He suggests this is so because “[t]he degree of\\nvagueness that the Constitution tolerates—as well as the\\n\\f 14\\nrelative importance of fair notice and fair enforcement—\\ndepends in part on the nature of the enactment.” Village of\\nHoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S.\\n489, 498 (1982). Class is correct that our analysis must be more\\nsearching in cases in which a law imposes criminal penalties,\\n“threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected\\nrights,” and lacks a scienter requirement. Id. at 498-99; see\\nSuppl. Class Br. 33. Class is also right that all three of those\\nfactors triggering additional skepticism are present here. First,\\nthe Capitol Grounds ban imposes significant criminal\\npenalties. 40 U.S.C. § 5109. Second, the ban at least implicates\\nthe right to bear arms, even if it does not violate the Second\\nAmendment. Cf. N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Cuomo,\\n804 F.3d 242, 265 (2d Cir. 2015) (applying a “more stringent”\\nvagueness standard to a gun regulation).\\n\\n The third factor “affecting the clarity that the Constitution\\ndemands of a law” is whether a statute possesses a scienter\\nrequirement, an inquiry that, at least in this appeal, needs some\\nexplanation. Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 499. “Scienter” is\\n“the degree of knowledge sufficient to ‘mak[e] a person legally\\nresponsible for the consequences of his or her act or\\nomission.’” Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2195\\n(2019) (quoting BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1547 (10th ed.\\n2014)). Here, the district court interpreted the Capitol Grounds\\nban as requiring knowledge as to the possession of a firearm,\\nbut not as to presence on the Capitol Grounds. 2 According to\\nClass, the fact that an armed person who unknowingly wanders\\nonto the grounds could violate the statute counsels against\\nconcluding that the law provides sufficient notice of the\\nconduct it proscribes.\\n\\n 2\\n As we discuss in greater detail below, we are not confronted\\nwith the question of whether the district court’s interpretation of the\\nstatute was correct.\\n\\f 15\\n\\n We agree that the district court’s determination that the\\nCapitol Grounds ban lacks a scienter requirement means “that\\nthe Constitution tolerates” a lesser “degree of vagueness” than\\nwould be permissible had the court reached the contrary\\nconclusion. Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 498. Indeed, we have\\nrelied on the presence of a scienter requirement to uphold laws\\nin the face of vagueness challenges. See, e.g., Wash.\\nMobilization Comm. v. Cullinane, 566 F.2d 107, 118 (D.C. Cir.\\n1977) (holding that a regulation prohibiting the crossing of a\\npolice line comports with the Due Process Clause so long as\\n“the location of the line is clearly indicated and if adequate\\nnotice is given”); accord United States v. Nieves-Castano, 480\\nF.3d 597, 603-04 (1st Cir. 2007).\\n\\n The question on appeal, however, is not whether the more\\nsearching standard from Hoffman Estates applies. It does. The\\nquestion on appeal is whether Class’s conviction violates the\\nDue Process Clause because of how vague the statute is. It does\\nnot. As we noted above, the steps necessary for determining the\\nspecial status of the Maryland Avenue lot are not the most\\nstraightforward. But the statute is sufficiently clear to “give [a]\\nperson of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to\\nknow what is prohibited.” Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 498\\n(quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09\\n(1972)). That is ultimately what the Due Process Clause\\nrequires, and that standard has been met. Cf. Klein, 463 F.3d at\\n1039 (upholding against a vagueness challenge a picketing ban\\ndespite the lack of a scienter requirement).\\n\\n We note in closing that the lack of a scienter requirement\\nin the ban might raise issues of statutory construction. But\\nClass has waived those arguments. In two cases, including one\\ndecided very recently, the Supreme Court has concluded that\\nrestrictions on the possession of firearms require proof of\\n\\f 16\\nscienter. Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2200 (“[T]he Government must\\nprove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm\\nand that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of\\npersons barred from possessing a firearm.”); Staples v.\\nUnited States, 511 U.S. 600, 619 (1994) (“[T]o obtain a\\nconviction, the Government should have been required to\\nprove that [the defendant] knew of the features of his [gun] that\\nbrought it within the scope of the [prohibition].”). The parallel\\nis clear: Rehaif concerned a ban on possession of a gun by a\\nperson with a particular immigration status; Staples concerned\\na ban on possession of a particular type of gun; and this case\\nconcerns a ban on possession of a gun in a particular place.\\n\\n But those cases resolved only “question[s] of statutory\\nconstruction,” not the constitutional right to due process.\\nStaples, 511 U.S. at 604; see Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2194. That\\nis, Staples and Rehaif both concluded that Congress had not\\nintended to impose criminal penalties for possession of a gun\\nwithout proof of scienter; neither case addressed whether or not\\nCongress lacks the power to impose such penalties. And here,\\nthe Supreme Court held only that the claims which survived\\nClass’s guilty plea were those that “challenge the\\nGovernment’s power to criminalize” his conduct. See Class,\\n138 S. Ct. at 805. We therefore reiterate our prior holding that\\nClass waived his statutory claims. And to succeed on his\\nconstitutional challenge, it is not enough for Class to show that\\nthe best reading of the law requires proof of scienter. Instead,\\nClass must show that the law is so difficult for the average\\nperson to understand that the Constitution forbids his\\nconviction without such proof.\\n\\n He cannot meet that heavy burden. As we discuss above,\\ndetermining that the ban applies to the Maryland Avenue lot is\\nnot a perfectly straightforward exercise, but citizens are\\npresumed to know the law, and the task of ascertaining the\\n\\f 17\\nboundaries of the Capitol Grounds is not so difficult that\\nClass’s conviction violates the Constitution.\\n\\n IV\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district\\ncourt is affirmed.\\n\\n So ordered.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3462,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4641195,"string":"4,641,195"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Michael M. MONZEL, Appellant"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Michael Monzel"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-19"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"16-3108"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Rogers, Millett, Katsas\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued January 23, 2019 Decided July 19, 2019\\n\\n No. 16-3108\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n APPELLEE\\n\\n v.\\n\\n MICHAEL M. MONZEL,\\n APPELLANT\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the District of Columbia\\n (No. 1:09-cr-00243-1)\\n\\n\\n Rosanna M. Taormina, Assistant Federal Public Defender,\\nargued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs was A.J.\\nKramer, Federal Public Defender.\\n\\n Eric Hansford, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause\\nfor appellee. With him on the brief were Jessie K. Liu, U.S.\\nAttorney, and Elizabeth Trosman, Elizabeth H. Danello, and\\nDavid B. Kent, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.\\n\\n Before: ROGERS, MILLETT and KATSAS, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT.\\n\\f 2\\n MILLETT, Circuit Judge: Congress has mandated that\\nthose convicted of child pornography offenses pay “full”\\nrestitution to their victims for any injuries they “proximate[ly]”\\ncaused. 18 U.S.C. § 2259 (2012). That directive recognizes\\nthat every perpetrator’s viewing of a child’s image inflicts\\ndistinct harm on that child in that it effects “a repetition of the\\nvictim’s abuse.” See Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct.\\n1710, 1727 (2014).\\n\\n In Paroline, the Supreme Court prescribed a general\\nmethod and “rough guideposts” for trial courts to follow in\\ndetermining a perpetrator’s “relative causal role” in a victim’s\\ninjury. 134 S. Ct. at 1728. This case asks what portion of a\\nvictim’s damages a single, non-distributing possessor can be\\nordered to pay. Because the district court followed Paroline in\\ncalculating a restitutionary amount that is reasonably tailored\\nto the defendant Michael Monzel’s causal role, we affirm.\\n\\n I\\n\\n Section 2259(a) of Title 18 requires district courts to\\n“order restitution for any offense” involving “Sexual\\nExploitation and Other Abuse of Children.” 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 2259(a) (cross-referencing the offenses specified in Chapter\\n110 of Title 18). So as not to leave any doubt, Congress\\ndeclared that “[t]he issuance of a restitution order under this\\nsection is mandatory.” Id. § 2259(b)(4) (emphasis added).\\nBoth distribution and possession of child pornography offenses\\nfall under Section 2259’s mandatory restitution scheme. See\\nid. § 2252(a)(2), (4)(B).\\n\\n Under Section 2259, convicted defendants must pay their\\nvictim the “full amount of the victim’s losses as determined by\\nthe court[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(1); see also id. § 2259(c)\\n(defining the victim entitled to restitution as “the individual\\n\\f 3\\nharmed as a result of a commission of a crime under this\\nchapter”). The statute, in turn, defines the “full amount of the\\nvictim’s losses” as including “costs incurred” for medical\\nservices (physical, psychiatric, and psychological), therapy,\\nnecessary transportation, temporary housing and child care\\nexpenses, lost income, and attorneys’ fees, as well as “any\\nother losses suffered * * * as a proximate result of the offense.”\\nId. § 2259(b)(3)(A)–(F). The government bears the burden of\\n“demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as\\na result of the offense.” Id. § 3664(e) (incorporated by\\nreference in 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(2)).1\\n\\n II\\n\\n In December 2009, Michael Monzel pled guilty to one\\ncount each of distributing and of possessing child pornography.\\nSee United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 530 (D.C. Cir.\\n2011) (“Monzel I”); 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (4)(B). The child\\npornography collection amassed by Monzel included an image\\nof “Amy.” See Monzel I, 641 F.3d at 530. Amy is the same\\nvictimized individual who sought restitution in Paroline. 134\\nS. Ct. at 1716. Her story is, at this point, tragically familiar.\\nWhen she was “eight and nine years old, [Amy] was sexually\\nabused by her uncle in order to produce child pornography.”\\n\\n 1\\n Congress has since amended Section 2259 to both codify\\nParoline’s basic approach and to set a restitution floor of $3,000. See\\nAmy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of\\n2018, Pub. L. No. 115-299, 132 Stat. 4383 (2018). We agree with\\nthe parties that this amendment does not apply to this case. 18\\nU.S.C.A. § 2259B(d) (West 2019) (describing “the sense of\\nCongress” that this amendment does not apply retroactively); Oral\\nArg. Tr. 62–63; cf. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 264\\n(1994) (declining to apply civil law enacted on appeal because “rules\\nwill not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language\\nrequires this result”) (citation omitted).\\n\\f 4\\nId. at 1717. She underwent therapy from 1998 through 1999,\\nand, according to her therapist, was “back to normal” “[b]y the\\nend of this period.” Id. But then a “major blow to her recovery\\ncame when, at the age of 17, she learned that images of her\\nabuse were being trafficked on the Internet.” Id. Naturally,\\n“[t]he knowledge that her images were circulated far and wide\\nrenewed [Amy’s] trauma and made it difficult for her to\\nrecover from her abuse.” Id. By the time Paroline was decided\\nin 2014, possessors of her image “easily number[ed] in the\\nthousands.” Id.\\n\\n Following Monzel’s conviction, the district court\\nsentenced him to ten years of imprisonment. Amy then sought\\nrestitution for all of her losses on a theory of joint and several\\nliability. Monzel I, 641 F.3d at 531. Monzel, on the other hand,\\nthought Amy should receive only $100 because the\\ngovernment had failed to show “what portion of [her] losses he\\nhad caused.” Id. at 530. The district court initially awarded\\nAmy $5,000 of “nominal” restitution. Id. Although “the\\nGovernment ha[d] not * * * suggested any rational, evidence-\\nbased procedure for ascertaining the dollar value of the harms”\\nattributable to Monzel, the district court explained that it had\\n“no doubt” the $5,000 award was “less than the actual harm”\\nMonzel had caused. United States v. Monzel, Criminal Case\\nNo. 09-243 (GK), 2011 WL 10549405, at *2–3 (D.D.C. Jan.\\n11, 2011).\\n\\n Amy filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court\\nto challenge the amount of the district court’s award. See 18\\nU.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (authorizing mandamus actions by victims\\nchallenging restitutionary awards). This court granted the\\npetition in part. While we held that the rule of joint and several\\nliability does not apply to the child-pornography restitution\\nscheme, we agreed that the district court could not “award[] an\\namount of restitution it acknowledged was less than the harm\\n\\f 5\\nMonzel had caused.” Monzel I, 641 F.3d at 539. We directed\\nthe district court on remand to “rely upon some principled\\nmethod for determining the harm Monzel proximately caused.”\\nId. at 540.\\n\\n But, alas, the district court’s quest for a fair causal\\nbenchmark proved unfruitful. “[F]or reasons not of its\\nmaking,” the district court explained, the government was\\nunable to offer anything more than “speculati[on]” as to\\nMonzel’s individual causal contribution to Amy’s harm. See\\nUnited States v. Monzel, Criminal Case No. 09-243 (GK), 2012\\nWL 12069547, at *6, *4 n.4 (D.D.C. Nov. 6, 2012) (emphasis\\nadded). Recognizing that the result was “most unpalatable,”\\nthe district court ruled that the government had left it no choice\\nbut to deny completely the restitution request. Id. at *6.\\n\\n The government appealed, and while that appeal was\\npending, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Paroline. See\\nParoline v. United States, No. 12-8561 (cert. granted, Jun. 27,\\n2013). Because that case involved the same victim, the same\\ncrime, and the same underlying legal question, we held the\\nappeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of\\nParoline. See Order, In re: Amy, Child Pornography Victim,\\nNo. 12-3093, 1:09-cr-00243-GK-1 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2013).\\n\\n Ten months later, the Supreme Court decided Paroline.\\n134 S. Ct. at 1710. Paroline rejected Amy’s theory of joint and\\nseveral liability, holding instead that restitution is available\\n“only to the extent the defendant’s offense proximately caused\\na victim’s losses.” Id. at 1722.\\n\\n This court vacated and remanded for the district court “to\\nredetermine restitution for Amy consistent with” the Paroline\\nframework. See Order, In re: Amy, Child Pornography Victim,\\nNo. 12-3093 (D.C. Cir. June 13, 2014).\\n\\f 6\\n\\n The district court then awarded Amy $7,500 in restitution.\\nSee United States v. Monzel, 209 F. Supp. 3d 73, 77 (D.D.C.\\n2016) (“Monzel II”). The court began, as Paroline directed, by\\ncalculating Amy’s total losses from the continued trafficking\\nof her image, finding that they amounted to $3,243,195. Id. at\\n76. That amount was based on “the Government’s second\\nrequest for restitution,” minus $20,563 for certain “specific\\nexpenses.” Id.\\n\\n To determine Monzel’s individual causal contribution, the\\ndistrict court tracked Paroline’s “guideposts,” 134 S. Ct. at\\n1728. The court adopted the government’s statement that, to\\nits knowledge, there had been “197 restitution orders on behalf\\nof Amy.” Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 76. The court also\\naccepted the government’s representation that it lacked\\n“sufficient, reliable data from which to make reasonable\\nestimates” of two other Paroline guideposts: the anticipated\\nnumber of future convictions related to Amy’s image, or of\\n“future offenders” who will possess and distribute Amy’s\\nimage while evading conviction. Id.\\n\\n Next, the district court found that Monzel’s possession of\\na single image of Amy made only a relatively “minor”\\ncontribution to her losses. Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 76.\\nBased on Monzel’s individual role, as well as information\\nabout “prior restitution awards for Amy,” the district court, “in\\nits discretion, determine[d] that an award of $7,500 in\\nrestitution [was] appropriate.” Id. at 77. That amount, the\\ndistrict court found, “comport[ed] with [Monzel’s] causal—but\\nminor—role in Amy’s ongoing losses resulting from the\\ncontinued trafficking of her images.” Id.\\n\\n Monzel appeals.\\n\\f 7\\n III\\n\\n We review a restitution order for an abuse of discretion,\\nand we “examine the factual findings underpinning the order\\nfor clear error.” In re Sealed Case, 702 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir.\\n2012). “A district court by definition abuses its discretion\\nwhen it makes an error of law.” Koon v. United States, 518\\nU.S. 81, 100 (1996).\\n\\n A\\n\\n We are not the first, and surely will not be the last, court\\nto wrestle with giving practical effect to Section 2259’s\\nproximate-cause test for mandatory restitution in the context of\\nchild-pornography offenses. While “every viewing” of a\\nchild’s pornographic image itself re-inflicts “the victim’s\\nabuse,” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727, no “discrete, readily\\ndefinable incremental loss” can easily be traced to each\\nindividual possessor’s exploitation of the image, id. 1726. As\\na result, there can be no “precise algorithm” for computing\\nindividual restitution awards. Id. at 1728.\\n\\n Here, as in Paroline, the defendant was a non-distributing\\npossessor of an image that thousands have trafficked.\\nParoline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727. In such cases, the perpetrator’s\\nrelative share “[sh]ould not be severe,” but neither should it be\\n“token or nominal.” Id. Instead, it should be “reasonable and\\ncircumscribed,” geared to the statute’s dual purposes of\\n“helping the victim achieve eventual restitution for all her\\nchild-pornography losses and impressing upon offenders the\\nfact that child-pornography crimes, even simple possession,\\naffect real victims.” Id.\\n\\n To that end, Paroline identified seven “rough guideposts”\\nthat district courts “might consider” in navigating between the\\n\\f 8\\nScylla and Charybdis of prohibited “severe” and “nominal”\\nawards. 134 S. Ct. at 1728. The considerations identified by\\nthe Court include:\\n\\n • “[W]hether the defendant reproduced or\\n distributed images of the victim”;\\n • “[W]hether the defendant had any connection to\\n the initial production of the images”;\\n • “[H]ow many images of the victim the defendant\\n possessed”;\\n • “[T]he number of past criminal defendants found\\n to have contributed to the victim’s general losses”;\\n • “[R]easonable predictions of the number of future\\n offenders likely to be caught and convicted for\\n crimes contributing to the victim’s general\\n losses”;\\n • “[A]ny available and reasonably reliable estimate\\n of the broader number of offenders involved (most\\n of whom will, of course, never be caught or\\n convicted)”; and\\n • “[O]ther facts relevant to the defendant’s relative\\n causal role.”\\n\\nId. The Court added that “restitution sought and ordered in\\nother [like] cases” could also be informative. Id. at 1729.\\n\\n The Supreme Court stressed that those factors are neither\\na mandatory checklist nor a “rigid formula,” but instead are\\nmeant to guide the sentencing court’s “wide discretion” and\\n“sound judgment.” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1728, 1729. Once\\na sentencing court has made its best judgment about a\\ndefendant’s relative share of causal blame, the resulting\\namount—if it is both “reasonable and circumscribed”—is then\\n“deemed the amount of the victim’s general losses”\\nproximately caused by the offense. Id. at 1728.\\n\\f 9\\n\\n B\\n\\n The district court’s decision in this case reflects a\\nreasonable exercise of discretion guided by the Paroline\\nguideposts and principles of analysis. The court began, as it\\nshould have, by calculating Amy’s general losses from the\\ntrafficking of her image. Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 76. The\\ncourt then marched carefully through each of Paroline’s factors\\nand delineated Monzel’s individual contribution to and\\nresponsibility for Amy’s losses. Id.; see also Paroline, 134 S.\\nCt. at 1727–1729. The court emphasized that Monzel\\npossessed “only one single image of Amy.” Monzel II, 209 F.\\nSupp. 3d at 76. There was no evidence he distributed her\\nimage, knew her, attempted to discover her identity or to\\ncontact her in any way, sought out her image in particular, paid\\nfor or sold her image, or “groom[ed] other minors for sexual\\nexploitation” using her image. Id. In view of Monzel’s real,\\nbut still “minor,” role, the court’s chosen award of $7,500 was\\nneither “severe,” nor “nominal,” but rather “reasonable and\\ncircumscribed” to fit Monzel’s contribution to Amy’s\\ndamages, Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727. That is all that Paroline\\nrequires.\\n\\n C\\n\\n Monzel’s arguments on appeal fall into three general\\nbuckets. First, he argues that the government failed to carry its\\nburden of proving “the amount of the loss sustained by a victim\\nas a result of the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e) (incorporated\\nby reference in 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(2)). Second, he asserts\\nthat the district court’s explanation for its award was\\ninsufficient and unreviewable. And he contends, thirdly, that\\nthe district court made several fatal factual mistakes. None of\\nthose challenges succeeds.\\n\\f 10\\n\\n 1\\n\\n Monzel offers a laundry list of asserted deficiencies in the\\ngovernment’s proof of the amount of Amy’s losses.\\nSpecifically, he objects that the government failed (i) to\\nidentify a particular amount of restitution, (ii) to formulate a\\ndiscrete methodology for the district court to follow, (iii) to\\nsubmit evidence about total offenders and future prosecutions,\\n(iv) to disaggregate Amy’s initial-abuse losses from her general\\nloss figure, and (v) to update the 2008 loss projections relied\\nupon by the district court. Monzel’s Br. 40–45. Those\\nobjections misunderstand the Paroline mission.\\n\\n At the outset, Monzel’s argument that the government’s\\nasserted evidentiary omissions preclude any award at all misses\\nthe mark. Monzel does not dispute that the district court put\\nthe burden of proof where it belonged—on the government. He\\nmakes no claim, for instance, that the district court erroneously\\nassigned him the burden of proof for any aspect of the case.\\nNor does Monzel dispute the government’s evidentiary\\nshowing that he possessed an image of Amy, and that Amy has\\n“outstanding losses caused by the continuing traffic in those\\nimages.” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727.\\n\\n Given that showing by the government and the court’s\\nagreement with it, an award of restitution was mandatory. 18\\nU.S.C. § 2259(b)(4). The only question, then, is whether the\\ndistrict court abused its discretion in calculating the award\\nbased on the record before it. See United States v. Dillard, 891\\nF.3d 151, 161 (4th Cir. 2018) (faulting the district court for\\ndenying recovery even though the government had proven the\\ndefendant possessed the victim’s image and that the victim had\\noutstanding losses from trafficking) (citing Paroline, 134 S. Ct.\\nat 1728); United States v. Rothenberg, 923 F.3d 1309, 1336–\\n\\f 11\\n1337 (11th Cir. 2019) (agreeing with Dillard that, once the\\ngovernment proves possession and outstanding losses,\\nrestitution must issue).\\n\\n So while the purported evidentiary gaps that Monzel has\\nidentified might bear upon the “reasonableness” of the amount\\nawarded, they would not let him off scot free. Cf. United States\\nv. Sainz, 827 F.3d 602, 607 (7th Cir. 2016) (explaining that\\nfailure of proof with respect to some Paroline factors “should\\nnot be a barrier to all compensation for victims of child\\npornography”).\\n\\n Viewed as challenges to the reasonableness of the\\nrestitution award, all five of Monzel’s evidentiary arguments\\nfail.\\n\\n First, Monzel complains that the government did not\\nrequest a specific amount of restitution on Amy’s behalf. But\\nthat is neither here nor there. A party’s claim for a particular\\namount of restitution is not proof of causation. Instead, Section\\n3664(e) requires the government to “demonstrat[e] the amount\\nof the loss,” not to propose a mathematical calculation or to\\nspecifically assert a dollar amount. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e)\\n(emphasis added). So the question on appeal is not what the\\ngovernment asked for, but what the district court found. We\\nare, after all, reviewing the district court’s judgment, not the\\nUnited States’ briefs. And the lack of a particular dollar\\namount in the government’s request does not, by itself,\\nestablish as a matter of law the “unreasonableness” of the\\ndistrict court’s order.\\n\\n Second, Monzel faults the government for failing to\\nproffer, and the district court for failing to adopt, a formulaic\\nmethodology for computing the restitution award. No dice.\\nWhat Paroline requires is that courts issue “reasonable and\\n\\f 12\\ncircumscribed” awards. 134 S. Ct. at 1727. Beyond that,\\nParoline was explicit that the district court’s judgment “cannot\\nbe a precise mathematical inquiry”; “algorithm[s]” and “rigid\\nformula[s]” are not required. Id. at 1728 (emphasis added); see\\nalso United States v. Rogers, 758 F.3d 37, 39 (1st Cir. 2014)\\n(per curiam) (affirming award in apparent absence of any\\nformula); Dillard, 891 F.3d at 161 (district court made\\n“fundamental error” when it decided not to order restitution\\nbecause it disagreed with government’s proposed formula); cf.\\nUnited States v. Halverson, 897 F.3d 645, 650 & n.1, 654 (5th\\nCir. 2018) (endorsing a diversity of calculation methods\\nbecause the Paroline factors “need not be converted into a rigid\\nformula”).\\n\\n Third, Monzel faults the government for failing to provide\\nestimates on two of the Paroline factors—the number of future\\nconvictions and the total offenders predicted to possess Amy’s\\nimage.\\n\\n Again, Paroline says otherwise. Those numbers were only\\ntwo among a number of “rough guideposts” flagged in\\nParoline. 134 S. Ct. at 1728. Those particular factors are not\\n“rigid” evidentiary requirements that the government is bound\\nto satisfy, or that the district court is obliged to analyze, in\\nevery restitution case. United States v. Bordman, 895 F.3d\\n1048, 1059 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at\\n1728), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1618 (Apr. 29, 2019). Instead,\\nthe factors are permissive, and a district court is generally free\\nto disregard them if it reasonably concludes they are\\nunknowable or otherwise uninstructive. See id.; Sainz, 827\\nF.3d at 606 (“We do not read Paroline as requiring district\\ncourts to consider in every case every factor mentioned.”);\\nUnited States v. Knapp, 695 F. App’x 985, 988 (8th Cir. 2017)\\n(“Paroline does not require an analysis of each of its\\npermissive factors.”).\\n\\f 13\\n\\n Of course, it may not be reasonable for a district court to\\ndisregard those guideposts that describe the essential character\\nof the individual perpetrator’s offense, such as the number of\\nimages possessed and the number of acts of distribution. Those\\nfacts would generally seem to be indispensable to evaluating a\\ndefendant’s relative causal role.\\n\\n In addition to the nature of the perpetrator’s role, the\\nnumber of images involved, and the number of acts of\\ndistribution, there can be “other facts relevant to the\\ndefendant’s relative causal role,” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1728,\\nwhich often will include: (i) the frequency of views and shares,\\nbecause “every viewing * * * is a repetition of the victim’s\\nabuse,” id. at 1727; (ii) the means by which the images were\\nacquired (e.g., the trading of other images in exchange, the\\npayment of money encouraging the abuse, requests for images\\nof escalating levels of abuse); (iii) any stalking or attempts at\\nvictim contact; (iv) the defendant’s individual contribution to\\nthe market for the victim’s image over time—that is, whether\\nhe sought out this particular victim’s images, the length of his\\ninvolvement in child pornography, whether he displayed a\\npattern of offenses, and whether he has distributed other\\nimages; and (v) the use of images to groom other children for\\nabuse or exposure to pornography. Additional considerations\\nmay also include the imperative of ensuring that the individual\\nperpetrator is internalizing the costs of harm to the victim, and\\nthe need to deter recidivism by encouraging the perpetrator to\\nexpress remorse, to obtain treatment, or to otherwise pursue\\nrehabilitative steps that will prevent him from generating\\nfurther demand for child pornography.\\n\\n But the factors Monzel cites—those seeking to predict the\\nfuture behavior of third parties—will often have less salience.\\nFor starters, those factors are aimed mainly at preventing over-\\n\\f 14\\ncompensation of the victim, which is not an issue in this case\\n(or in many cases).\\n\\n Beyond that, many courts have concluded that, as\\nrestitution factors, future convictions and total offenders are\\n“virtually unknown and unknowable.” United States v.\\nCrisostomi, 31 F. Supp. 3d 361, 364 (D.R.I. 2014); see United\\nStates v. Hite, 113 F. Supp. 3d 91, 96 (D.D.C. 2015); United\\nStates v. DiLeo, 58 F. Supp. 3d 239, 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2014);\\nUnited States v. Wencewicz, 63 F. Supp. 3d 1238, 1246 (D.\\nMont. 2014), vacated and remanded on other grounds, United\\nStates v. Grovo, 653 F. App’x 512 (9th Cir. 2016); United\\nStates v. Moody, CR 417–256, 2018 WL 3887506, at *3 (S.D.\\nGa. Aug. 15, 2018); United States v. Reddick, CASE No. 2:17-\\nCR-208-WKW, 2018 WL 445112, at *6 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 16,\\n2018); United States v. Ayer, Case No. 2:15-cr-86-APG-NJK,\\n2015 WL 7259765, at *2 n.2 (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2015); United\\nStates v. Romero-Medrano, 2017 WL 5177647, at *4 (S.D.\\nTex. Nov. 8, 2017); United States v. Schultz, CRIMINAL\\nACTION NO. 14-10085-RGS, 2015 WL 5972421, at *2 (D.\\nMass. Oct. 14, 2015); United States v. Gamble, No. 1:10–CR–\\n137, 2015 WL 4162924, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. July 9, 2015);\\nUnited States v. Campbell-Zorn, No. CR–14–41–BLG–SPW,\\n2014 WL 7215214, at *6 (D. Mont. Dec. 17, 2014); United\\nStates v. Bellah, No. 13–10169–EFM, 2014 WL 7073287, at\\n*3 (D. Kan. Dec. 12, 2014); United States v. McIntosh, No.\\n4:14cr28, 2014 WL 5422215, at *6 (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 2014);\\nUnited States v. Daniel, No. 3:07–CR–142–O, 2014 WL\\n5314834, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2014); United States v.\\nReynolds, No. 12–20843, 2014 WL 4187936, at *6 (E.D. Mich.\\nAug. 22, 2014); United States v. Watkins, No. 2:13–cr–00268\\nLKK AC, 2014 WL 3966381, at *6–7 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13,\\n2014); accord Sainz, 827 F.3d at 607 (This information “may\\nnot even be reliably known.”); United States v. Grovo, 826 F.3d\\n\\f 15\\n1207, 1221 (9th Cir. 2016) (same); United States v. Evans, 802\\nF.3d 942, 950 (8th Cir. 2015) (same).\\n\\n The bottom line is that that Paroline provided a “starting\\npoint” for the district courts’ analyses. The Supreme Court did\\nnot carve its permissive guideposts into doctrinal stone. See\\nParoline, 134 S. Ct. at 1728. In many cases, the district courts\\nhave concluded that total offenders and future convictions are\\nunknowable and uninstructive. The government in this case\\nstated that it lacked “sufficient, reliable data from which to\\nmake reasonable estimates” of the number of future\\nconvictions likely to involve images of Amy. Monzel II, 209\\nF. Supp. 3d at 76. The government added that it has no way to\\nestimate the broader number of offenders who possess images\\nof Amy. Id. The district court accepted both representations.\\nId. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse\\nits discretion by focusing instead on the more defendant-\\nfocused and market-perpetuating factors, as well as the\\npractical impact of the award. See id. at 77.\\n\\n Fourth, the district court relied upon a 2008 economic\\nreport that estimated Amy would suffer $512,681 in future\\ntreatment expenses and $2,751,077 in future vocational losses.\\nMonzel argues that the government was obligated to update the\\nreport with the actual rather than predicted cost projections for\\nthe period between 2009 and 2015, and to adjust the report’s\\nfuture projections based upon more recent developments in\\nAmy’s treatment patterns.\\n\\n But a determination of Monzel’s relative causal role does\\nnot require a perpetual nickeling and diming of the victim\\nthrough the imposition of a never-ending accounting\\nrequirement—a mandate that would force the victim to\\nconstantly confront the growing number of offenders who trade\\nin her image.\\n\\f 16\\n\\n In any event, Monzel has not shown that, without his\\nrequested adjustments, there would be a significant temporal\\ngap or a material dollar disparity between the initial projection\\nand actual costs. For example, the projected treatment costs for\\nthe 2009 to 2015 period constituted only a minute fraction of\\nAmy’s losses. And even then, the record reveals no clear\\ndisparity between the report’s projections and the costs actually\\nincurred. Cf. FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(a). As for Amy’s future\\ntreatment, the record confirms the core assumptions that\\nunderlay the 2008 projections. In other words, on this record,\\ndemanding an update for the sake of an update would not be\\nworth the candle.\\n\\n Fifth, Monzel argues that the district court was required to\\nformally backout of Amy’s lifetime of psychological treatment\\nand social and vocational impacts those future damages\\nattributable to both her initial abuse and the initial distribution\\nof her image. That argument, again, seeks to impose a\\nmathematical rigidity that Paroline eschews. The Supreme\\nCourt made “connection to the initial production of the images”\\none of several factors that could be considered. See Paroline,\\n572 U.S. at 460. Here, the district court expressly took into\\naccount that Monzel was in no way “connected to the initial\\nproduction” of Amy’s images. Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at\\n76. Paroline requires no more than that.\\n\\n The argument also proves too much. Courts already\\nconsider whether the defendant’s conduct was connected to\\n“the initial production of the images.” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at\\n1728. Monzel’s demand that courts also mathematically\\ndisaggregate the losses from before the images entered the\\nmarketplace simply blinks away the compounding effects of\\ndemand for child-pornography images on their production in\\nthe first place. It also ignores the distinct harm that Amy\\n\\f 17\\nsuffered upon learning that the images of her already-\\ncompleted abuse were being viewed for pleasure by\\nperpetrators like Monzel. Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1717. For the\\ntype of long-term harms at issue here, courts cannot be\\nexpected to formally disaggregate the intertwined. See\\nBordman, 895 F.3d at 1059 (explaining that it would transform\\nParoline’s “rough guideposts” into a “rigid formula” to treat\\ninitial-abuse disaggregation as a threshold requirement)\\n(citation omitted); Rothenberg, 923 F.3d at 1333–1334 (same);\\ncf. United States v. Miner, 617 F. App’x 102, 103 (2d Cir.\\n2015) (explaining that, in the disaggregation context, Paroline\\ndoes not require a “detailed accounting”).\\n\\n The Ninth Circuit has taken the opposite tack. See United\\nStates v. Galan, 804 F.3d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir. 2015) (reading\\nParoline as “plainly perceiv[ing] a need for separation”). But\\nin our view, that court’s categorical test demands a level of\\nforensic precision in the causal analysis that fails to account for\\nthe synergistic effect of possessors’ demand for images on the\\nharms unleashed by production. The complexity of the Ninth\\nCircuit’s approach also demands in most cases more linear\\nprecision than a comparative “relative” causal role seeks to\\nmeasure. Not to mention the continuing need to ensure,\\nthrough the award, that each perpetrator internalizes the costs\\nof his actions. See Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727 (describing goal\\nof “impressing upon offenders the fact that child-pornography\\ncrimes, even simple possession, affect real victims”).\\n\\n The test’s difficulties are seemingly reflected in the large\\nnumber of district court cases within the Ninth Circuit in which\\nvictims have been denied restitution because the government\\ncannot meet its “impossible [evidentiary] task” of\\ndisaggregating, in a coherent way, a victim’s lifetime of costs\\nfrom the marketing of her images. See United States v. Chan,\\nCR No. 15-00224 DKW, 2016 WL 370712, at *2 (D. Haw.\\n\\f 18\\nJan. 29, 2016) (denying recovery because government could\\nnot surmount the “monumental difficulty associated with * * *\\ndisaggregation”); accord United States v. Kugler, No. CR 14-\\n73-BLG-SPW, 2016 WL 816741, at *3 (D. Mont. Feb. 29,\\n2016) (same); cf. United States v. Young, 703 F. App’x 520,\\n521 (9th Cir. 2017) (unpublished decision reversing for failure\\nto disaggregate); United States v. Massa, 647 F. App’x 718,\\n721 (9th Cir. 2016) (same); United States v. Blurton, 623 F.\\nApp’x 318, 319 (9th Cir. 2015) (same); Campbell-Zorn, 2014\\nWL 7215214, at *4 (Disaggregation “only seems possible in\\nthe rather unique situation presented in Paroline where there is\\nsome kind of demarcation between the losses from the initial\\nabuse and the losses from continued trafficking.”) (emphasis\\nomitted).2\\n\\n 2\\n\\n In addition to those evidentiary objections, Monzel takes\\naim at the district court’s reasoning. He argues, first, that the\\nopinion is so devoid of analysis as to be unreviewable for all\\nintents and purposes. Monzel’s Br. 46. Monzel contends,\\nsecondly, that the district court wrongly failed to address “any”\\n\\n 2\\n Certain statements from the Tenth Circuit’s decision in United\\nStates v. Dunn, 777 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2015), could also be read to\\nendorse a categorical disaggregation requirement. See, e.g., id. at\\n1181. But context is everything, and the Tenth Circuit made its\\nstatements in the course of overturning a trial court decision that had\\nheld a distributor jointly and severally liable with the abuser for the\\nentirety of the outstanding losses. So disaggregation, as Dunn\\ndeployed the concept, may have meant simply that distributors and\\npossessors should pay only for their relative roles. See Rothenberg,\\n923 F.3d at 1333 (“Dunn must be read in the factual context of a\\nreversal of a district court’s ruling that a defendant was jointly and\\nseverally liable with all other defendants, including the abuser, for\\nthe entirety of the victim’s * * * total losses[.]”).\\n\\f 19\\nof his mitigation arguments. Id. at 47. Both challenges are\\nmistaken.\\n\\n As for reviewability, district courts generally are required\\nto “articulate the specific factual findings underlying * * *\\nrestitution order[s] in order to enable appellate review.” United\\nStates v. Fair, 699 F.3d 508, 513 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (citations\\nomitted); cf. Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959,\\n1965 (2018) (with respect to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s sentencing\\nfactors, district court’s explanation must be sufficient “to allow\\nfor meaningful appellate review” in “the circumstances of the\\nparticular case”).\\n\\n The district court’s opinion here easily passes that test.\\nThe court discussed each of the Paroline factors, emphasizing\\nand delineating Monzel’s relatively “minor” role. Monzel II,\\n209 F. Supp. 3d at 76–77. Whether or not those record-based\\ndeterminations are correct, they are certainly amenable to\\nappellate review.\\n\\n Monzel insists the district court opinion must leave “some\\nway for [us] to trace the derivation of the court’s $7,500\\naward[.]” Monzel’s Br. 46 (second emphasis added). The\\nquestion, however, is not whether the district court showed\\nevery step of its homework. The decision being made is one of\\nreasoned judgment, not formulaic computation. Cf. Chavez-\\nMeza, 138 S. Ct. at 1964 (In sentencing, “[t]he appropriateness\\nof brevity or length, conciseness or detail, when to write, what\\nto say, depends upon circumstances.”) (quoting Rita v. United\\nStates, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).\\n\\n So we ask only whether the district court reasonably\\nexercised its discretion in weighing the Paroline and other\\nrelevant factors, applying them to the record in this case, and\\nthen choosing a “circumscribed” award that is consistent with\\n\\f 20\\nthe restitutionary purposes of the statutory scheme. See\\nParoline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727; Massa, 647 F. App’x at 720\\n(upholding restitution award even though “[i]t would have been\\nhelpful for the court to have provided more detail as to how it\\nreached the $8,000 figure for each victim,” because “the\\nawards appear ‘reasonable and circumscribed,’ and neither\\n‘token or nominal’ nor ‘severe’”); accord United States v.\\nBeckmann, 786 F.3d 672, 683 (8th Cir. 2015). The district\\ncourt did just that, discussing the relevant factors and\\nemphasizing Monzel’s limited role as the possessor of a single\\nimage. Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 76–77.\\n\\n Taking a 180-degree turn, Monzel next argues that the\\ndistrict court was too mathematical in its approach. Monzel\\nspeculates that the district court randomly selected five post-\\nParoline awards, averaged the amounts to $7,432.63, and\\nrounded that figure “to an even $7,500.” Monzel’s Br. 37, 45.\\nBut that reconstruction of the district court’s reasoning is as\\nimplausible as it is uncharitable. First, Monzel concedes that\\nhis argument fudged the math. His calculation relied upon the\\n$7,500 that was in fact “award[ed]” in United States v. Bellah,\\nNo. 13–10169–EFM, 2014 WL 7073287 (D. Kan. Dec. 12,\\n2014), rather than the $7,000 figure cited by the district court\\nbelow. Monzel’s Br. 37 n.15.\\n\\n Anyhow, the district court here explained that its decision\\nwas based on “the parties’ arguments, the relevant Paroline\\nfactors, * * * and * * * information provided regarding prior\\nrestitution awards for Amy,” and not on the small and random\\nsampling of post-Paroline awards stressed in Monzel’s\\nbriefing. See Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 77 (emphasis\\nadded). We take the district court at its word. For more than a\\ndecade, the court has been immersed in this litigation and,\\nthroughout, has consistently demonstrated a good-faith effort\\nto properly implement the evolving legal standard for\\n\\f 21\\nrestitution awards. See, e.g., id.; Monzel, 2012 WL 12069547,\\nat *4; Monzel, 2011 WL 10549405, at *2. There is no basis for\\nimputing a hidden and arbitrary decisionmaking process to the\\ncourt.\\n\\n Monzel’s next objection is that the district court “did not\\naddress any of [his] arguments in mitigation[.]” Monzel’s Br.\\n47. That argument falls flat. A sentencing court must generally\\nconsider all “nonfrivolous arguments for mitigation.” See\\nUnited States v. Bigley, 786 F.3d 11, 12, 14 (D.C. Cir. 2015);\\naccord United States v. McKeever, 824 F.3d 1113, 1125–1126\\n(D.C. Cir. 2016). And that is what the district court did here.\\nIt acknowledged Monzel’s “minor” role, and it specifically\\nemphasized the lack of evidence that Monzel (i) knew Amy,\\nattempted to discover her identity, or attempted to contact her;\\n(ii) sought out images of Amy in particular; (iii) paid for or\\nreceived anything of value for her images; or (iv) groomed\\nother minors with her images. See Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d\\nat 76. With all of those considerations factored into the\\nultimate award, id. at 77, Monzel fails to identify any material\\nmitigation arguments that the district court did not address.\\n\\n 3\\n\\n Finally, Monzel offers a laundry list of factual errors he\\ndeems fatal to the district court’s judgment. None are.\\n\\n First, he argues that the district court wrongly read Monzel\\nI as setting a $5,000 floor below which his restitution payment\\ncould not go. And that erroneous starting point, Monzel\\ncontends, tainted the ultimate $7,500 award.\\n\\n That argument is doubly flawed. As an exegetical matter,\\nthe district court’s construction of Monzel I was quite\\nreasonable. This court was explicit that it was “grant[ing]\\n\\f 22\\n[Amy’s] petition” because “the $5,000 the court awarded was,\\nby [the district court’s] own acknowledgement, less than the\\namount of harm Monzel caused Amy[.]” Monzel I, 641 F.3d at\\n534 (emphasis added). While the district court could have\\nfound that the dollar amount changed, the admonition not to\\norder restitution in an amount less than what Monzel caused\\nremained in place.\\n\\n As a factual matter, the district court never indicated in any\\nway that the $5,000 floor tied its hands in the wake of Paroline,\\nsomehow forcing it to award more restitution than warranted.\\nSee Order, In re: Amy, Child Pornography Victim, No. 12-3093\\n(D.C. Cir. June 13, 2014) (directing the district court “to\\nredetermine restitution for Amy consistent with” the causation\\nframework set out in Paroline). Monzel points to nothing in\\nthe district court’s opinion that even hints that its post-Paroline\\nanalysis proceeded with a $5000 weight already on the\\ndamages scale.\\n\\n Second, Monzel claims the district court made a pair of\\nfactual errors, subtracting both too much and too little from\\nAmy’s general loss figure. According to him, the court should\\nhave subtracted $7,186 to exclude damages incurred prior to\\nMonzel’s arrest in 2009, and also should not have subtracted\\n$20,563 in attorney’s fees because Amy’s submission\\nconsisted exclusively of vocational and treatment expenses. As\\nto the purported $7,186 over-inclusion of loss, the impact—if\\nany—in determining Monzel’s share of Amy’s more than $3\\nmillion in losses is at best de minimis, and at worst incalculable.\\nAnd as to the asserted underestimation of Amy’s general\\nlosses, that could only have inured to Monzel’s benefit. See\\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 52(a) (reversal only for prejudicial error). No\\nharm, no foul.\\n\\f 23\\n Third, Monzel faults the district court for failing to\\nmention the amount of Amy’s then-to-date recovery. That\\nargument asks the wrong question. Under Paroline, restitution\\nreflects not Monzel’s share of Amy’s unpaid balance, but rather\\nhis contribution to her “general losses”—“the aggregate losses,\\nincluding the costs of psychiatric treatment and lost income,\\nthat stem from the ongoing traffic in her images as a whole.”\\nParoline, 134 S. Ct. at 1722. The harm that Monzel caused\\ndoes not change just because other sources of compensation\\nmay have surfaced. Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(4)(B) (barring\\ndistrict courts from “declin[ing] to issue [restitution] because\\nof * * * the fact that a victim has, or is entitled to, receive\\ncompensation for his or her injuries from the proceeds of\\ninsurance or any other source”).\\n\\n Lastly, Monzel returns to the “math.” He claims that\\n$7,500 cannot represent his actual contribution to Amy’s losses\\nbecause it “essentially assumes that Mr. Monzel is one of 432\\npeople ($3,243,195/$7,500) who have harmed and will harm\\nAmy,” when in fact thousands continue to trade in her image.\\nMonzel’s Br. 52. Any effort to apportion Amy’s losses evenly\\namong the full universe of offenders would, by Monzel’s\\naccount, yield something between fifteen dollars and less than\\na penny.\\n\\n That is exactly the reasoning that Paroline rejected. See\\n134 S. Ct. at 1734 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (finding it “hard\\nto see how a court fairly assessing this defendant’s relative\\ncontribution could do anything” other than “impose ‘trivial\\nrestitution orders’”) (citation omitted). Under Paroline,\\nrestitution is a matter of “discretion and sound judgment,” not\\nan exercise in long division. 134 S. Ct. at 1728 (majority op.)\\n(no “trivial” awards); id. at 1744 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting)\\n(“[A] truly proportional approach to restitution would lead to\\nan award of just $47 against any individual defendant.\\n\\f 24\\nCongress obviously did not intend that outcome, and the Court\\nwisely refuses to permit it.”) (citation omitted).\\n\\n *****\\n\\n Restitution in child pornography cases is meant to address\\nthe very real and reverberating trauma that attends each\\nperpetrator’s acquisition and viewing of a victim’s image.\\n“[C]hild pornography is ‘a permanent record’ of the depicted\\nchild’s abuse, and ‘the harm to the child is [only further]\\nexacerbated by [its] circulation.’” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1717\\n(third alteration in original) (quoting New York v. Ferber, 458\\nU.S. 747, 759 (1982)); cf. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 111\\n(1990) (Child pornography “haunt[s] [the victim] in years to\\ncome.”). What Monzel’s slide-rule approach fails to come to\\ngrips with is that the harm to Amy became greater, not less,\\nwhen he joined the ranks of perpetrators, reinflicting and\\nperpetuating her trauma. To value that pain in pennies would\\nmake the restitution statute an insult to the victims. It would\\nalso wrongly allow the individual possessor to hide among the\\nsea of wrongdoers. The district court was correct to hold\\nMonzel accountable for the harm that he caused by acquiring\\nand viewing for personal pleasure the image of Amy’s abuse.\\n\\n The judgment of the district court is affirmed.\\n\\n So ordered.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4418448/\", \"author_raw\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROGERS"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MILLETT"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"KATSAS"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641195/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Michael M. MONZEL, Appellant\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-19\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued January 23, 2019 Decided July 19, 2019\n\n No. 16-3108\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n APPELLEE\n\n v.\n\n MICHAEL M. MONZEL,\n APPELLANT\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the District of Columbia\n (No. 1:09-cr-00243-1)\n\n\n Rosanna M. Taormina, Assistant Federal Public Defender,\nargued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs was A.J.\nKramer, Federal Public Defender.\n\n Eric Hansford, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause\nfor appellee. With him on the brief were Jessie K. Liu, U.S.\nAttorney, and Elizabeth Trosman, Elizabeth H. Danello, and\nDavid B. Kent, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.\n\n Before: ROGERS, MILLETT and KATSAS, Circuit Judges.\n\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT.\n\f 2\n MILLETT, Circuit Judge: Congress has mandated that\nthose convicted of child pornography offenses pay “full”\nrestitution to their victims for any injuries they “proximate[ly]”\ncaused. 18 U.S.C. § 2259 (2012). That directive recognizes\nthat every perpetrator’s viewing of a child’s image inflicts\ndistinct harm on that child in that it effects “a repetition of the\nvictim’s abuse.” See Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct.\n1710, 1727 (2014).\n\n In Paroline, the Supreme Court prescribed a general\nmethod and “rough guideposts” for trial courts to follow in\ndetermining a perpetrator’s “relative causal role” in a victim’s\ninjury. 134 S. Ct. at 1728. This case asks what portion of a\nvictim’s damages a single, non-distributing possessor can be\nordered to pay. Because the district court followed Paroline in\ncalculating a restitutionary amount that is reasonably tailored\nto the defendant Michael Monzel’s causal role, we affirm.\n\n I\n\n Section 2259(a) of Title 18 requires district courts to\n“order restitution for any offense” involving “Sexual\nExploitation and Other Abuse of Children.” 18 U.S.C.\n§ 2259(a) (cross-referencing the offenses specified in Chapter\n110 of Title 18). So as not to leave any doubt, Congress\ndeclared that “[t]he issuance of a restitution order under this\nsection is mandatory.” Id. § 2259(b)(4) (emphasis added).\nBoth distribution and possession of child pornography offenses\nfall under Section 2259’s mandatory restitution scheme. See\nid. § 2252(a)(2), (4)(B).\n\n Under Section 2259, convicted defendants must pay their\nvictim the “full amount of the victim’s losses as determined by\nthe court[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(1); see also id. § 2259(c)\n(defining the victim entitled to restitution as “the individual\n\f 3\nharmed as a result of a commission of a crime under this\nchapter”). The statute, in turn, defines the “full amount of the\nvictim’s losses” as including “costs incurred” for medical\nservices (physical, psychiatric, and psychological), therapy,\nnecessary transportation, temporary housing and child care\nexpenses, lost income, and attorneys’ fees, as well as “any\nother losses suffered * * * as a proximate result of the offense.”\nId. § 2259(b)(3)(A)–(F). The government bears the burden of\n“demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as\na result of the offense.” Id. § 3664(e) (incorporated by\nreference in 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(2)).1\n\n II\n\n In December 2009, Michael Monzel pled guilty to one\ncount each of distributing and of possessing child pornography.\nSee United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 530 (D.C. Cir.\n2011) (“Monzel I”); 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (4)(B). The child\npornography collection amassed by Monzel included an image\nof “Amy.” See Monzel I, 641 F.3d at 530. Amy is the same\nvictimized individual who sought restitution in Paroline. 134\nS. Ct. at 1716. Her story is, at this point, tragically familiar.\nWhen she was “eight and nine years old, [Amy] was sexually\nabused by her uncle in order to produce child pornography.”\n\n 1\n Congress has since amended Section 2259 to both codify\nParoline’s basic approach and to set a restitution floor of $3,000. See\nAmy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of\n2018, Pub. L. No. 115-299, 132 Stat. 4383 (2018). We agree with\nthe parties that this amendment does not apply to this case. 18\nU.S.C.A. § 2259B(d) (West 2019) (describing “the sense of\nCongress” that this amendment does not apply retroactively); Oral\nArg. Tr. 62–63; cf. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 264\n(1994) (declining to apply civil law enacted on appeal because “rules\nwill not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language\nrequires this result”) (citation omitted).\n\f 4\nId. at 1717. She underwent therapy from 1998 through 1999,\nand, according to her therapist, was “back to normal” “[b]y the\nend of this period.” Id. But then a “major blow to her recovery\ncame when, at the age of 17, she learned that images of her\nabuse were being trafficked on the Internet.” Id. Naturally,\n“[t]he knowledge that her images were circulated far and wide\nrenewed [Amy’s] trauma and made it difficult for her to\nrecover from her abuse.” Id. By the time Paroline was decided\nin 2014, possessors of her image “easily number[ed] in the\nthousands.” Id.\n\n Following Monzel’s conviction, the district court\nsentenced him to ten years of imprisonment. Amy then sought\nrestitution for all of her losses on a theory of joint and several\nliability. Monzel I, 641 F.3d at 531. Monzel, on the other hand,\nthought Amy should receive only $100 because the\ngovernment had failed to show “what portion of [her] losses he\nhad caused.” Id. at 530. The district court initially awarded\nAmy $5,000 of “nominal” restitution. Id. Although “the\nGovernment ha[d] not * * * suggested any rational, evidence-\nbased procedure for ascertaining the dollar value of the harms”\nattributable to Monzel, the district court explained that it had\n“no doubt” the $5,000 award was “less than the actual harm”\nMonzel had caused. United States v. Monzel, Criminal Case\nNo. 09-243 (GK), 2011 WL 10549405, at *2–3 (D.D.C. Jan.\n11, 2011).\n\n Amy filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court\nto challenge the amount of the district court’s award. See 18\nU.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (authorizing mandamus actions by victims\nchallenging restitutionary awards). This court granted the\npetition in part. While we held that the rule of joint and several\nliability does not apply to the child-pornography restitution\nscheme, we agreed that the district court could not “award[] an\namount of restitution it acknowledged was less than the harm\n\f 5\nMonzel had caused.” Monzel I, 641 F.3d at 539. We directed\nthe district court on remand to “rely upon some principled\nmethod for determining the harm Monzel proximately caused.”\nId. at 540.\n\n But, alas, the district court’s quest for a fair causal\nbenchmark proved unfruitful. “[F]or reasons not of its\nmaking,” the district court explained, the government was\nunable to offer anything more than “speculati[on]” as to\nMonzel’s individual causal contribution to Amy’s harm. See\nUnited States v. Monzel, Criminal Case No. 09-243 (GK), 2012\nWL 12069547, at *6, *4 n.4 (D.D.C. Nov. 6, 2012) (emphasis\nadded). Recognizing that the result was “most unpalatable,”\nthe district court ruled that the government had left it no choice\nbut to deny completely the restitution request. Id. at *6.\n\n The government appealed, and while that appeal was\npending, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Paroline. See\nParoline v. United States, No. 12-8561 (cert. granted, Jun. 27,\n2013). Because that case involved the same victim, the same\ncrime, and the same underlying legal question, we held the\nappeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of\nParoline. See Order, In re: Amy, Child Pornography Victim,\nNo. 12-3093, 1:09-cr-00243-GK-1 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2013).\n\n Ten months later, the Supreme Court decided Paroline.\n134 S. Ct. at 1710. Paroline rejected Amy’s theory of joint and\nseveral liability, holding instead that restitution is available\n“only to the extent the defendant’s offense proximately caused\na victim’s losses.” Id. at 1722.\n\n This court vacated and remanded for the district court “to\nredetermine restitution for Amy consistent with” the Paroline\nframework. See Order, In re: Amy, Child Pornography Victim,\nNo. 12-3093 (D.C. Cir. June 13, 2014).\n\f 6\n\n The district court then awarded Amy $7,500 in restitution.\nSee United States v. Monzel, 209 F. Supp. 3d 73, 77 (D.D.C.\n2016) (“Monzel II”). The court began, as Paroline directed, by\ncalculating Amy’s total losses from the continued trafficking\nof her image, finding that they amounted to $3,243,195. Id. at\n76. That amount was based on “the Government’s second\nrequest for restitution,” minus $20,563 for certain “specific\nexpenses.” Id.\n\n To determine Monzel’s individual causal contribution, the\ndistrict court tracked Paroline’s “guideposts,” 134 S. Ct. at\n1728. The court adopted the government’s statement that, to\nits knowledge, there had been “197 restitution orders on behalf\nof Amy.” Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 76. The court also\naccepted the government’s representation that it lacked\n“sufficient, reliable data from which to make reasonable\nestimates” of two other Paroline guideposts: the anticipated\nnumber of future convictions related to Amy’s image, or of\n“future offenders” who will possess and distribute Amy’s\nimage while evading conviction. Id.\n\n Next, the district court found that Monzel’s possession of\na single image of Amy made only a relatively “minor”\ncontribution to her losses. Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 76.\nBased on Monzel’s individual role, as well as information\nabout “prior restitution awards for Amy,” the district court, “in\nits discretion, determine[d] that an award of $7,500 in\nrestitution [was] appropriate.” Id. at 77. That amount, the\ndistrict court found, “comport[ed] with [Monzel’s] causal—but\nminor—role in Amy’s ongoing losses resulting from the\ncontinued trafficking of her images.” Id.\n\n Monzel appeals.\n\f 7\n III\n\n We review a restitution order for an abuse of discretion,\nand we “examine the factual findings underpinning the order\nfor clear error.” In re Sealed Case, 702 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir.\n2012). “A district court by definition abuses its discretion\nwhen it makes an error of law.” Koon v. United States, 518\nU.S. 81, 100 (1996).\n\n A\n\n We are not the first, and surely will not be the last, court\nto wrestle with giving practical effect to Section 2259’s\nproximate-cause test for mandatory restitution in the context of\nchild-pornography offenses. While “every viewing” of a\nchild’s pornographic image itself re-inflicts “the victim’s\nabuse,” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727, no “discrete, readily\ndefinable incremental loss” can easily be traced to each\nindividual possessor’s exploitation of the image, id. 1726. As\na result, there can be no “precise algorithm” for computing\nindividual restitution awards. Id. at 1728.\n\n Here, as in Paroline, the defendant was a non-distributing\npossessor of an image that thousands have trafficked.\nParoline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727. In such cases, the perpetrator’s\nrelative share “[sh]ould not be severe,” but neither should it be\n“token or nominal.” Id. Instead, it should be “reasonable and\ncircumscribed,” geared to the statute’s dual purposes of\n“helping the victim achieve eventual restitution for all her\nchild-pornography losses and impressing upon offenders the\nfact that child-pornography crimes, even simple possession,\naffect real victims.” Id.\n\n To that end, Paroline identified seven “rough guideposts”\nthat district courts “might consider” in navigating between the\n\f 8\nScylla and Charybdis of prohibited “severe” and “nominal”\nawards. 134 S. Ct. at 1728. The considerations identified by\nthe Court include:\n\n • “[W]hether the defendant reproduced or\n distributed images of the victim”;\n • “[W]hether the defendant had any connection to\n the initial production of the images”;\n • “[H]ow many images of the victim the defendant\n possessed”;\n • “[T]he number of past criminal defendants found\n to have contributed to the victim’s general losses”;\n • “[R]easonable predictions of the number of future\n offenders likely to be caught and convicted for\n crimes contributing to the victim’s general\n losses”;\n • “[A]ny available and reasonably reliable estimate\n of the broader number of offenders involved (most\n of whom will, of course, never be caught or\n convicted)”; and\n • “[O]ther facts relevant to the defendant’s relative\n causal role.”\n\nId. The Court added that “restitution sought and ordered in\nother [like] cases” could also be informative. Id. at 1729.\n\n The Supreme Court stressed that those factors are neither\na mandatory checklist nor a “rigid formula,” but instead are\nmeant to guide the sentencing court’s “wide discretion” and\n“sound judgment.” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1728, 1729. Once\na sentencing court has made its best judgment about a\ndefendant’s relative share of causal blame, the resulting\namount—if it is both “reasonable and circumscribed”—is then\n“deemed the amount of the victim’s general losses”\nproximately caused by the offense. Id. at 1728.\n\f 9\n\n B\n\n The district court’s decision in this case reflects a\nreasonable exercise of discretion guided by the Paroline\nguideposts and principles of analysis. The court began, as it\nshould have, by calculating Amy’s general losses from the\ntrafficking of her image. Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 76. The\ncourt then marched carefully through each of Paroline’s factors\nand delineated Monzel’s individual contribution to and\nresponsibility for Amy’s losses. Id.; see also Paroline, 134 S.\nCt. at 1727–1729. The court emphasized that Monzel\npossessed “only one single image of Amy.” Monzel II, 209 F.\nSupp. 3d at 76. There was no evidence he distributed her\nimage, knew her, attempted to discover her identity or to\ncontact her in any way, sought out her image in particular, paid\nfor or sold her image, or “groom[ed] other minors for sexual\nexploitation” using her image. Id. In view of Monzel’s real,\nbut still “minor,” role, the court’s chosen award of $7,500 was\nneither “severe,” nor “nominal,” but rather “reasonable and\ncircumscribed” to fit Monzel’s contribution to Amy’s\ndamages, Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727. That is all that Paroline\nrequires.\n\n C\n\n Monzel’s arguments on appeal fall into three general\nbuckets. First, he argues that the government failed to carry its\nburden of proving “the amount of the loss sustained by a victim\nas a result of the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e) (incorporated\nby reference in 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(2)). Second, he asserts\nthat the district court’s explanation for its award was\ninsufficient and unreviewable. And he contends, thirdly, that\nthe district court made several fatal factual mistakes. None of\nthose challenges succeeds.\n\f 10\n\n 1\n\n Monzel offers a laundry list of asserted deficiencies in the\ngovernment’s proof of the amount of Amy’s losses.\nSpecifically, he objects that the government failed (i) to\nidentify a particular amount of restitution, (ii) to formulate a\ndiscrete methodology for the district court to follow, (iii) to\nsubmit evidence about total offenders and future prosecutions,\n(iv) to disaggregate Amy’s initial-abuse losses from her general\nloss figure, and (v) to update the 2008 loss projections relied\nupon by the district court. Monzel’s Br. 40–45. Those\nobjections misunderstand the Paroline mission.\n\n At the outset, Monzel’s argument that the government’s\nasserted evidentiary omissions preclude any award at all misses\nthe mark. Monzel does not dispute that the district court put\nthe burden of proof where it belonged—on the government. He\nmakes no claim, for instance, that the district court erroneously\nassigned him the burden of proof for any aspect of the case.\nNor does Monzel dispute the government’s evidentiary\nshowing that he possessed an image of Amy, and that Amy has\n“outstanding losses caused by the continuing traffic in those\nimages.” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727.\n\n Given that showing by the government and the court’s\nagreement with it, an award of restitution was mandatory. 18\nU.S.C. § 2259(b)(4). The only question, then, is whether the\ndistrict court abused its discretion in calculating the award\nbased on the record before it. See United States v. Dillard, 891\nF.3d 151, 161 (4th Cir. 2018) (faulting the district court for\ndenying recovery even though the government had proven the\ndefendant possessed the victim’s image and that the victim had\noutstanding losses from trafficking) (citing Paroline, 134 S. Ct.\nat 1728); United States v. Rothenberg, 923 F.3d 1309, 1336–\n\f 11\n1337 (11th Cir. 2019) (agreeing with Dillard that, once the\ngovernment proves possession and outstanding losses,\nrestitution must issue).\n\n So while the purported evidentiary gaps that Monzel has\nidentified might bear upon the “reasonableness” of the amount\nawarded, they would not let him off scot free. Cf. United States\nv. Sainz, 827 F.3d 602, 607 (7th Cir. 2016) (explaining that\nfailure of proof with respect to some Paroline factors “should\nnot be a barrier to all compensation for victims of child\npornography”).\n\n Viewed as challenges to the reasonableness of the\nrestitution award, all five of Monzel’s evidentiary arguments\nfail.\n\n First, Monzel complains that the government did not\nrequest a specific amount of restitution on Amy’s behalf. But\nthat is neither here nor there. A party’s claim for a particular\namount of restitution is not proof of causation. Instead, Section\n3664(e) requires the government to “demonstrat[e] the amount\nof the loss,” not to propose a mathematical calculation or to\nspecifically assert a dollar amount. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e)\n(emphasis added). So the question on appeal is not what the\ngovernment asked for, but what the district court found. We\nare, after all, reviewing the district court’s judgment, not the\nUnited States’ briefs. And the lack of a particular dollar\namount in the government’s request does not, by itself,\nestablish as a matter of law the “unreasonableness” of the\ndistrict court’s order.\n\n Second, Monzel faults the government for failing to\nproffer, and the district court for failing to adopt, a formulaic\nmethodology for computing the restitution award. No dice.\nWhat Paroline requires is that courts issue “reasonable and\n\f 12\ncircumscribed” awards. 134 S. Ct. at 1727. Beyond that,\nParoline was explicit that the district court’s judgment “cannot\nbe a precise mathematical inquiry”; “algorithm[s]” and “rigid\nformula[s]” are not required. Id. at 1728 (emphasis added); see\nalso United States v. Rogers, 758 F.3d 37, 39 (1st Cir. 2014)\n(per curiam) (affirming award in apparent absence of any\nformula); Dillard, 891 F.3d at 161 (district court made\n“fundamental error” when it decided not to order restitution\nbecause it disagreed with government’s proposed formula); cf.\nUnited States v. Halverson, 897 F.3d 645, 650 & n.1, 654 (5th\nCir. 2018) (endorsing a diversity of calculation methods\nbecause the Paroline factors “need not be converted into a rigid\nformula”).\n\n Third, Monzel faults the government for failing to provide\nestimates on two of the Paroline factors—the number of future\nconvictions and the total offenders predicted to possess Amy’s\nimage.\n\n Again, Paroline says otherwise. Those numbers were only\ntwo among a number of “rough guideposts” flagged in\nParoline. 134 S. Ct. at 1728. Those particular factors are not\n“rigid” evidentiary requirements that the government is bound\nto satisfy, or that the district court is obliged to analyze, in\nevery restitution case. United States v. Bordman, 895 F.3d\n1048, 1059 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at\n1728), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1618 (Apr. 29, 2019). Instead,\nthe factors are permissive, and a district court is generally free\nto disregard them if it reasonably concludes they are\nunknowable or otherwise uninstructive. See id.; Sainz, 827\nF.3d at 606 (“We do not read Paroline as requiring district\ncourts to consider in every case every factor mentioned.”);\nUnited States v. Knapp, 695 F. App’x 985, 988 (8th Cir. 2017)\n(“Paroline does not require an analysis of each of its\npermissive factors.”).\n\f 13\n\n Of course, it may not be reasonable for a district court to\ndisregard those guideposts that describe the essential character\nof the individual perpetrator’s offense, such as the number of\nimages possessed and the number of acts of distribution. Those\nfacts would generally seem to be indispensable to evaluating a\ndefendant’s relative causal role.\n\n In addition to the nature of the perpetrator’s role, the\nnumber of images involved, and the number of acts of\ndistribution, there can be “other facts relevant to the\ndefendant’s relative causal role,” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1728,\nwhich often will include: (i) the frequency of views and shares,\nbecause “every viewing * * * is a repetition of the victim’s\nabuse,” id. at 1727; (ii) the means by which the images were\nacquired (e.g., the trading of other images in exchange, the\npayment of money encouraging the abuse, requests for images\nof escalating levels of abuse); (iii) any stalking or attempts at\nvictim contact; (iv) the defendant’s individual contribution to\nthe market for the victim’s image over time—that is, whether\nhe sought out this particular victim’s images, the length of his\ninvolvement in child pornography, whether he displayed a\npattern of offenses, and whether he has distributed other\nimages; and (v) the use of images to groom other children for\nabuse or exposure to pornography. Additional considerations\nmay also include the imperative of ensuring that the individual\nperpetrator is internalizing the costs of harm to the victim, and\nthe need to deter recidivism by encouraging the perpetrator to\nexpress remorse, to obtain treatment, or to otherwise pursue\nrehabilitative steps that will prevent him from generating\nfurther demand for child pornography.\n\n But the factors Monzel cites—those seeking to predict the\nfuture behavior of third parties—will often have less salience.\nFor starters, those factors are aimed mainly at preventing over-\n\f 14\ncompensation of the victim, which is not an issue in this case\n(or in many cases).\n\n Beyond that, many courts have concluded that, as\nrestitution factors, future convictions and total offenders are\n“virtually unknown and unknowable.” United States v.\nCrisostomi, 31 F. Supp. 3d 361, 364 (D.R.I. 2014); see United\nStates v. Hite, 113 F. Supp. 3d 91, 96 (D.D.C. 2015); United\nStates v. DiLeo, 58 F. Supp. 3d 239, 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2014);\nUnited States v. Wencewicz, 63 F. Supp. 3d 1238, 1246 (D.\nMont. 2014), vacated and remanded on other grounds, United\nStates v. Grovo, 653 F. App’x 512 (9th Cir. 2016); United\nStates v. Moody, CR 417–256, 2018 WL 3887506, at *3 (S.D.\nGa. Aug. 15, 2018); United States v. Reddick, CASE No. 2:17-\nCR-208-WKW, 2018 WL 445112, at *6 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 16,\n2018); United States v. Ayer, Case No. 2:15-cr-86-APG-NJK,\n2015 WL 7259765, at *2 n.2 (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2015); United\nStates v. Romero-Medrano, 2017 WL 5177647, at *4 (S.D.\nTex. Nov. 8, 2017); United States v. Schultz, CRIMINAL\nACTION NO. 14-10085-RGS, 2015 WL 5972421, at *2 (D.\nMass. Oct. 14, 2015); United States v. Gamble, No. 1:10–CR–\n137, 2015 WL 4162924, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. July 9, 2015);\nUnited States v. Campbell-Zorn, No. CR–14–41–BLG–SPW,\n2014 WL 7215214, at *6 (D. Mont. Dec. 17, 2014); United\nStates v. Bellah, No. 13–10169–EFM, 2014 WL 7073287, at\n*3 (D. Kan. Dec. 12, 2014); United States v. McIntosh, No.\n4:14cr28, 2014 WL 5422215, at *6 (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 2014);\nUnited States v. Daniel, No. 3:07–CR–142–O, 2014 WL\n5314834, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2014); United States v.\nReynolds, No. 12–20843, 2014 WL 4187936, at *6 (E.D. Mich.\nAug. 22, 2014); United States v. Watkins, No. 2:13–cr–00268\nLKK AC, 2014 WL 3966381, at *6–7 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13,\n2014); accord Sainz, 827 F.3d at 607 (This information “may\nnot even be reliably known.”); United States v. Grovo, 826 F.3d\n\f 15\n1207, 1221 (9th Cir. 2016) (same); United States v. Evans, 802\nF.3d 942, 950 (8th Cir. 2015) (same).\n\n The bottom line is that that Paroline provided a “starting\npoint” for the district courts’ analyses. The Supreme Court did\nnot carve its permissive guideposts into doctrinal stone. See\nParoline, 134 S. Ct. at 1728. In many cases, the district courts\nhave concluded that total offenders and future convictions are\nunknowable and uninstructive. The government in this case\nstated that it lacked “sufficient, reliable data from which to\nmake reasonable estimates” of the number of future\nconvictions likely to involve images of Amy. Monzel II, 209\nF. Supp. 3d at 76. The government added that it has no way to\nestimate the broader number of offenders who possess images\nof Amy. Id. The district court accepted both representations.\nId. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse\nits discretion by focusing instead on the more defendant-\nfocused and market-perpetuating factors, as well as the\npractical impact of the award. See id. at 77.\n\n Fourth, the district court relied upon a 2008 economic\nreport that estimated Amy would suffer $512,681 in future\ntreatment expenses and $2,751,077 in future vocational losses.\nMonzel argues that the government was obligated to update the\nreport with the actual rather than predicted cost projections for\nthe period between 2009 and 2015, and to adjust the report’s\nfuture projections based upon more recent developments in\nAmy’s treatment patterns.\n\n But a determination of Monzel’s relative causal role does\nnot require a perpetual nickeling and diming of the victim\nthrough the imposition of a never-ending accounting\nrequirement—a mandate that would force the victim to\nconstantly confront the growing number of offenders who trade\nin her image.\n\f 16\n\n In any event, Monzel has not shown that, without his\nrequested adjustments, there would be a significant temporal\ngap or a material dollar disparity between the initial projection\nand actual costs. For example, the projected treatment costs for\nthe 2009 to 2015 period constituted only a minute fraction of\nAmy’s losses. And even then, the record reveals no clear\ndisparity between the report’s projections and the costs actually\nincurred. Cf. FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(a). As for Amy’s future\ntreatment, the record confirms the core assumptions that\nunderlay the 2008 projections. In other words, on this record,\ndemanding an update for the sake of an update would not be\nworth the candle.\n\n Fifth, Monzel argues that the district court was required to\nformally backout of Amy’s lifetime of psychological treatment\nand social and vocational impacts those future damages\nattributable to both her initial abuse and the initial distribution\nof her image. That argument, again, seeks to impose a\nmathematical rigidity that Paroline eschews. The Supreme\nCourt made “connection to the initial production of the images”\none of several factors that could be considered. See Paroline,\n572 U.S. at 460. Here, the district court expressly took into\naccount that Monzel was in no way “connected to the initial\nproduction” of Amy’s images. Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at\n76. Paroline requires no more than that.\n\n The argument also proves too much. Courts already\nconsider whether the defendant’s conduct was connected to\n“the initial production of the images.” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at\n1728. Monzel’s demand that courts also mathematically\ndisaggregate the losses from before the images entered the\nmarketplace simply blinks away the compounding effects of\ndemand for child-pornography images on their production in\nthe first place. It also ignores the distinct harm that Amy\n\f 17\nsuffered upon learning that the images of her already-\ncompleted abuse were being viewed for pleasure by\nperpetrators like Monzel. Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1717. For the\ntype of long-term harms at issue here, courts cannot be\nexpected to formally disaggregate the intertwined. See\nBordman, 895 F.3d at 1059 (explaining that it would transform\nParoline’s “rough guideposts” into a “rigid formula” to treat\ninitial-abuse disaggregation as a threshold requirement)\n(citation omitted); Rothenberg, 923 F.3d at 1333–1334 (same);\ncf. United States v. Miner, 617 F. App’x 102, 103 (2d Cir.\n2015) (explaining that, in the disaggregation context, Paroline\ndoes not require a “detailed accounting”).\n\n The Ninth Circuit has taken the opposite tack. See United\nStates v. Galan, 804 F.3d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir. 2015) (reading\nParoline as “plainly perceiv[ing] a need for separation”). But\nin our view, that court’s categorical test demands a level of\nforensic precision in the causal analysis that fails to account for\nthe synergistic effect of possessors’ demand for images on the\nharms unleashed by production. The complexity of the Ninth\nCircuit’s approach also demands in most cases more linear\nprecision than a comparative “relative” causal role seeks to\nmeasure. Not to mention the continuing need to ensure,\nthrough the award, that each perpetrator internalizes the costs\nof his actions. See Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727 (describing goal\nof “impressing upon offenders the fact that child-pornography\ncrimes, even simple possession, affect real victims”).\n\n The test’s difficulties are seemingly reflected in the large\nnumber of district court cases within the Ninth Circuit in which\nvictims have been denied restitution because the government\ncannot meet its “impossible [evidentiary] task” of\ndisaggregating, in a coherent way, a victim’s lifetime of costs\nfrom the marketing of her images. See United States v. Chan,\nCR No. 15-00224 DKW, 2016 WL 370712, at *2 (D. Haw.\n\f 18\nJan. 29, 2016) (denying recovery because government could\nnot surmount the “monumental difficulty associated with * * *\ndisaggregation”); accord United States v. Kugler, No. CR 14-\n73-BLG-SPW, 2016 WL 816741, at *3 (D. Mont. Feb. 29,\n2016) (same); cf. United States v. Young, 703 F. App’x 520,\n521 (9th Cir. 2017) (unpublished decision reversing for failure\nto disaggregate); United States v. Massa, 647 F. App’x 718,\n721 (9th Cir. 2016) (same); United States v. Blurton, 623 F.\nApp’x 318, 319 (9th Cir. 2015) (same); Campbell-Zorn, 2014\nWL 7215214, at *4 (Disaggregation “only seems possible in\nthe rather unique situation presented in Paroline where there is\nsome kind of demarcation between the losses from the initial\nabuse and the losses from continued trafficking.”) (emphasis\nomitted).2\n\n 2\n\n In addition to those evidentiary objections, Monzel takes\naim at the district court’s reasoning. He argues, first, that the\nopinion is so devoid of analysis as to be unreviewable for all\nintents and purposes. Monzel’s Br. 46. Monzel contends,\nsecondly, that the district court wrongly failed to address “any”\n\n 2\n Certain statements from the Tenth Circuit’s decision in United\nStates v. Dunn, 777 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2015), could also be read to\nendorse a categorical disaggregation requirement. See, e.g., id. at\n1181. But context is everything, and the Tenth Circuit made its\nstatements in the course of overturning a trial court decision that had\nheld a distributor jointly and severally liable with the abuser for the\nentirety of the outstanding losses. So disaggregation, as Dunn\ndeployed the concept, may have meant simply that distributors and\npossessors should pay only for their relative roles. See Rothenberg,\n923 F.3d at 1333 (“Dunn must be read in the factual context of a\nreversal of a district court’s ruling that a defendant was jointly and\nseverally liable with all other defendants, including the abuser, for\nthe entirety of the victim’s * * * total losses[.]”).\n\f 19\nof his mitigation arguments. Id. at 47. Both challenges are\nmistaken.\n\n As for reviewability, district courts generally are required\nto “articulate the specific factual findings underlying * * *\nrestitution order[s] in order to enable appellate review.” United\nStates v. Fair, 699 F.3d 508, 513 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (citations\nomitted); cf. Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959,\n1965 (2018) (with respect to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s sentencing\nfactors, district court’s explanation must be sufficient “to allow\nfor meaningful appellate review” in “the circumstances of the\nparticular case”).\n\n The district court’s opinion here easily passes that test.\nThe court discussed each of the Paroline factors, emphasizing\nand delineating Monzel’s relatively “minor” role. Monzel II,\n209 F. Supp. 3d at 76–77. Whether or not those record-based\ndeterminations are correct, they are certainly amenable to\nappellate review.\n\n Monzel insists the district court opinion must leave “some\nway for [us] to trace the derivation of the court’s $7,500\naward[.]” Monzel’s Br. 46 (second emphasis added). The\nquestion, however, is not whether the district court showed\nevery step of its homework. The decision being made is one of\nreasoned judgment, not formulaic computation. Cf. Chavez-\nMeza, 138 S. Ct. at 1964 (In sentencing, “[t]he appropriateness\nof brevity or length, conciseness or detail, when to write, what\nto say, depends upon circumstances.”) (quoting Rita v. United\nStates, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).\n\n So we ask only whether the district court reasonably\nexercised its discretion in weighing the Paroline and other\nrelevant factors, applying them to the record in this case, and\nthen choosing a “circumscribed” award that is consistent with\n\f 20\nthe restitutionary purposes of the statutory scheme. See\nParoline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727; Massa, 647 F. App’x at 720\n(upholding restitution award even though “[i]t would have been\nhelpful for the court to have provided more detail as to how it\nreached the $8,000 figure for each victim,” because “the\nawards appear ‘reasonable and circumscribed,’ and neither\n‘token or nominal’ nor ‘severe’”); accord United States v.\nBeckmann, 786 F.3d 672, 683 (8th Cir. 2015). The district\ncourt did just that, discussing the relevant factors and\nemphasizing Monzel’s limited role as the possessor of a single\nimage. Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 76–77.\n\n Taking a 180-degree turn, Monzel next argues that the\ndistrict court was too mathematical in its approach. Monzel\nspeculates that the district court randomly selected five post-\nParoline awards, averaged the amounts to $7,432.63, and\nrounded that figure “to an even $7,500.” Monzel’s Br. 37, 45.\nBut that reconstruction of the district court’s reasoning is as\nimplausible as it is uncharitable. First, Monzel concedes that\nhis argument fudged the math. His calculation relied upon the\n$7,500 that was in fact “award[ed]” in United States v. Bellah,\nNo. 13–10169–EFM, 2014 WL 7073287 (D. Kan. Dec. 12,\n2014), rather than the $7,000 figure cited by the district court\nbelow. Monzel’s Br. 37 n.15.\n\n Anyhow, the district court here explained that its decision\nwas based on “the parties’ arguments, the relevant Paroline\nfactors, * * * and * * * information provided regarding prior\nrestitution awards for Amy,” and not on the small and random\nsampling of post-Paroline awards stressed in Monzel’s\nbriefing. See Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 77 (emphasis\nadded). We take the district court at its word. For more than a\ndecade, the court has been immersed in this litigation and,\nthroughout, has consistently demonstrated a good-faith effort\nto properly implement the evolving legal standard for\n\f 21\nrestitution awards. See, e.g., id.; Monzel, 2012 WL 12069547,\nat *4; Monzel, 2011 WL 10549405, at *2. There is no basis for\nimputing a hidden and arbitrary decisionmaking process to the\ncourt.\n\n Monzel’s next objection is that the district court “did not\naddress any of [his] arguments in mitigation[.]” Monzel’s Br.\n47. That argument falls flat. A sentencing court must generally\nconsider all “nonfrivolous arguments for mitigation.” See\nUnited States v. Bigley, 786 F.3d 11, 12, 14 (D.C. Cir. 2015);\naccord United States v. McKeever, 824 F.3d 1113, 1125–1126\n(D.C. Cir. 2016). And that is what the district court did here.\nIt acknowledged Monzel’s “minor” role, and it specifically\nemphasized the lack of evidence that Monzel (i) knew Amy,\nattempted to discover her identity, or attempted to contact her;\n(ii) sought out images of Amy in particular; (iii) paid for or\nreceived anything of value for her images; or (iv) groomed\nother minors with her images. See Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d\nat 76. With all of those considerations factored into the\nultimate award, id. at 77, Monzel fails to identify any material\nmitigation arguments that the district court did not address.\n\n 3\n\n Finally, Monzel offers a laundry list of factual errors he\ndeems fatal to the district court’s judgment. None are.\n\n First, he argues that the district court wrongly read Monzel\nI as setting a $5,000 floor below which his restitution payment\ncould not go. And that erroneous starting point, Monzel\ncontends, tainted the ultimate $7,500 award.\n\n That argument is doubly flawed. As an exegetical matter,\nthe district court’s construction of Monzel I was quite\nreasonable. This court was explicit that it was “grant[ing]\n\f 22\n[Amy’s] petition” because “the $5,000 the court awarded was,\nby [the district court’s] own acknowledgement, less than the\namount of harm Monzel caused Amy[.]” Monzel I, 641 F.3d at\n534 (emphasis added). While the district court could have\nfound that the dollar amount changed, the admonition not to\norder restitution in an amount less than what Monzel caused\nremained in place.\n\n As a factual matter, the district court never indicated in any\nway that the $5,000 floor tied its hands in the wake of Paroline,\nsomehow forcing it to award more restitution than warranted.\nSee Order, In re: Amy, Child Pornography Victim, No. 12-3093\n(D.C. Cir. June 13, 2014) (directing the district court “to\nredetermine restitution for Amy consistent with” the causation\nframework set out in Paroline). Monzel points to nothing in\nthe district court’s opinion that even hints that its post-Paroline\nanalysis proceeded with a $5000 weight already on the\ndamages scale.\n\n Second, Monzel claims the district court made a pair of\nfactual errors, subtracting both too much and too little from\nAmy’s general loss figure. According to him, the court should\nhave subtracted $7,186 to exclude damages incurred prior to\nMonzel’s arrest in 2009, and also should not have subtracted\n$20,563 in attorney’s fees because Amy’s submission\nconsisted exclusively of vocational and treatment expenses. As\nto the purported $7,186 over-inclusion of loss, the impact—if\nany—in determining Monzel’s share of Amy’s more than $3\nmillion in losses is at best de minimis, and at worst incalculable.\nAnd as to the asserted underestimation of Amy’s general\nlosses, that could only have inured to Monzel’s benefit. See\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 52(a) (reversal only for prejudicial error). No\nharm, no foul.\n\f 23\n Third, Monzel faults the district court for failing to\nmention the amount of Amy’s then-to-date recovery. That\nargument asks the wrong question. Under Paroline, restitution\nreflects not Monzel’s share of Amy’s unpaid balance, but rather\nhis contribution to her “general losses”—“the aggregate losses,\nincluding the costs of psychiatric treatment and lost income,\nthat stem from the ongoing traffic in her images as a whole.”\nParoline, 134 S. Ct. at 1722. The harm that Monzel caused\ndoes not change just because other sources of compensation\nmay have surfaced. Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(4)(B) (barring\ndistrict courts from “declin[ing] to issue [restitution] because\nof * * * the fact that a victim has, or is entitled to, receive\ncompensation for his or her injuries from the proceeds of\ninsurance or any other source”).\n\n Lastly, Monzel returns to the “math.” He claims that\n$7,500 cannot represent his actual contribution to Amy’s losses\nbecause it “essentially assumes that Mr. Monzel is one of 432\npeople ($3,243,195/$7,500) who have harmed and will harm\nAmy,” when in fact thousands continue to trade in her image.\nMonzel’s Br. 52. Any effort to apportion Amy’s losses evenly\namong the full universe of offenders would, by Monzel’s\naccount, yield something between fifteen dollars and less than\na penny.\n\n That is exactly the reasoning that Paroline rejected. See\n134 S. Ct. at 1734 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (finding it “hard\nto see how a court fairly assessing this defendant’s relative\ncontribution could do anything” other than “impose ‘trivial\nrestitution orders’”) (citation omitted). Under Paroline,\nrestitution is a matter of “discretion and sound judgment,” not\nan exercise in long division. 134 S. Ct. at 1728 (majority op.)\n(no “trivial” awards); id. at 1744 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting)\n(“[A] truly proportional approach to restitution would lead to\nan award of just $47 against any individual defendant.\n\f 24\nCongress obviously did not intend that outcome, and the Court\nwisely refuses to permit it.”) (citation omitted).\n\n *****\n\n Restitution in child pornography cases is meant to address\nthe very real and reverberating trauma that attends each\nperpetrator’s acquisition and viewing of a victim’s image.\n“[C]hild pornography is ‘a permanent record’ of the depicted\nchild’s abuse, and ‘the harm to the child is [only further]\nexacerbated by [its] circulation.’” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1717\n(third alteration in original) (quoting New York v. Ferber, 458\nU.S. 747, 759 (1982)); cf. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 111\n(1990) (Child pornography “haunt[s] [the victim] in years to\ncome.”). What Monzel’s slide-rule approach fails to come to\ngrips with is that the harm to Amy became greater, not less,\nwhen he joined the ranks of perpetrators, reinflicting and\nperpetuating her trauma. To value that pain in pennies would\nmake the restitution statute an insult to the victims. It would\nalso wrongly allow the individual possessor to hide among the\nsea of wrongdoers. The district court was correct to hold\nMonzel accountable for the harm that he caused by acquiring\nand viewing for personal pleasure the image of Amy’s abuse.\n\n The judgment of the district court is affirmed.\n\n So ordered.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Michael M. MONZEL, Appellant\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-19\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued January 23, 2019 Decided July 19, 2019\\n\\n No. 16-3108\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n APPELLEE\\n\\n v.\\n\\n MICHAEL M. MONZEL,\\n APPELLANT\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the District of Columbia\\n (No. 1:09-cr-00243-1)\\n\\n\\n Rosanna M. Taormina, Assistant Federal Public Defender,\\nargued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs was A.J.\\nKramer, Federal Public Defender.\\n\\n Eric Hansford, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause\\nfor appellee. With him on the brief were Jessie K. Liu, U.S.\\nAttorney, and Elizabeth Trosman, Elizabeth H. Danello, and\\nDavid B. Kent, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.\\n\\n Before: ROGERS, MILLETT and KATSAS, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT.\\n\\f 2\\n MILLETT, Circuit Judge: Congress has mandated that\\nthose convicted of child pornography offenses pay “full”\\nrestitution to their victims for any injuries they “proximate[ly]”\\ncaused. 18 U.S.C. § 2259 (2012). That directive recognizes\\nthat every perpetrator’s viewing of a child’s image inflicts\\ndistinct harm on that child in that it effects “a repetition of the\\nvictim’s abuse.” See Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct.\\n1710, 1727 (2014).\\n\\n In Paroline, the Supreme Court prescribed a general\\nmethod and “rough guideposts” for trial courts to follow in\\ndetermining a perpetrator’s “relative causal role” in a victim’s\\ninjury. 134 S. Ct. at 1728. This case asks what portion of a\\nvictim’s damages a single, non-distributing possessor can be\\nordered to pay. Because the district court followed Paroline in\\ncalculating a restitutionary amount that is reasonably tailored\\nto the defendant Michael Monzel’s causal role, we affirm.\\n\\n I\\n\\n Section 2259(a) of Title 18 requires district courts to\\n“order restitution for any offense” involving “Sexual\\nExploitation and Other Abuse of Children.” 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 2259(a) (cross-referencing the offenses specified in Chapter\\n110 of Title 18). So as not to leave any doubt, Congress\\ndeclared that “[t]he issuance of a restitution order under this\\nsection is mandatory.” Id. § 2259(b)(4) (emphasis added).\\nBoth distribution and possession of child pornography offenses\\nfall under Section 2259’s mandatory restitution scheme. See\\nid. § 2252(a)(2), (4)(B).\\n\\n Under Section 2259, convicted defendants must pay their\\nvictim the “full amount of the victim’s losses as determined by\\nthe court[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(1); see also id. § 2259(c)\\n(defining the victim entitled to restitution as “the individual\\n\\f 3\\nharmed as a result of a commission of a crime under this\\nchapter”). The statute, in turn, defines the “full amount of the\\nvictim’s losses” as including “costs incurred” for medical\\nservices (physical, psychiatric, and psychological), therapy,\\nnecessary transportation, temporary housing and child care\\nexpenses, lost income, and attorneys’ fees, as well as “any\\nother losses suffered * * * as a proximate result of the offense.”\\nId. § 2259(b)(3)(A)–(F). The government bears the burden of\\n“demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as\\na result of the offense.” Id. § 3664(e) (incorporated by\\nreference in 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(2)).1\\n\\n II\\n\\n In December 2009, Michael Monzel pled guilty to one\\ncount each of distributing and of possessing child pornography.\\nSee United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 530 (D.C. Cir.\\n2011) (“Monzel I”); 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (4)(B). The child\\npornography collection amassed by Monzel included an image\\nof “Amy.” See Monzel I, 641 F.3d at 530. Amy is the same\\nvictimized individual who sought restitution in Paroline. 134\\nS. Ct. at 1716. Her story is, at this point, tragically familiar.\\nWhen she was “eight and nine years old, [Amy] was sexually\\nabused by her uncle in order to produce child pornography.”\\n\\n 1\\n Congress has since amended Section 2259 to both codify\\nParoline’s basic approach and to set a restitution floor of $3,000. See\\nAmy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of\\n2018, Pub. L. No. 115-299, 132 Stat. 4383 (2018). We agree with\\nthe parties that this amendment does not apply to this case. 18\\nU.S.C.A. § 2259B(d) (West 2019) (describing “the sense of\\nCongress” that this amendment does not apply retroactively); Oral\\nArg. Tr. 62–63; cf. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 264\\n(1994) (declining to apply civil law enacted on appeal because “rules\\nwill not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language\\nrequires this result”) (citation omitted).\\n\\f 4\\nId. at 1717. She underwent therapy from 1998 through 1999,\\nand, according to her therapist, was “back to normal” “[b]y the\\nend of this period.” Id. But then a “major blow to her recovery\\ncame when, at the age of 17, she learned that images of her\\nabuse were being trafficked on the Internet.” Id. Naturally,\\n“[t]he knowledge that her images were circulated far and wide\\nrenewed [Amy’s] trauma and made it difficult for her to\\nrecover from her abuse.” Id. By the time Paroline was decided\\nin 2014, possessors of her image “easily number[ed] in the\\nthousands.” Id.\\n\\n Following Monzel’s conviction, the district court\\nsentenced him to ten years of imprisonment. Amy then sought\\nrestitution for all of her losses on a theory of joint and several\\nliability. Monzel I, 641 F.3d at 531. Monzel, on the other hand,\\nthought Amy should receive only $100 because the\\ngovernment had failed to show “what portion of [her] losses he\\nhad caused.” Id. at 530. The district court initially awarded\\nAmy $5,000 of “nominal” restitution. Id. Although “the\\nGovernment ha[d] not * * * suggested any rational, evidence-\\nbased procedure for ascertaining the dollar value of the harms”\\nattributable to Monzel, the district court explained that it had\\n“no doubt” the $5,000 award was “less than the actual harm”\\nMonzel had caused. United States v. Monzel, Criminal Case\\nNo. 09-243 (GK), 2011 WL 10549405, at *2–3 (D.D.C. Jan.\\n11, 2011).\\n\\n Amy filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court\\nto challenge the amount of the district court’s award. See 18\\nU.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (authorizing mandamus actions by victims\\nchallenging restitutionary awards). This court granted the\\npetition in part. While we held that the rule of joint and several\\nliability does not apply to the child-pornography restitution\\nscheme, we agreed that the district court could not “award[] an\\namount of restitution it acknowledged was less than the harm\\n\\f 5\\nMonzel had caused.” Monzel I, 641 F.3d at 539. We directed\\nthe district court on remand to “rely upon some principled\\nmethod for determining the harm Monzel proximately caused.”\\nId. at 540.\\n\\n But, alas, the district court’s quest for a fair causal\\nbenchmark proved unfruitful. “[F]or reasons not of its\\nmaking,” the district court explained, the government was\\nunable to offer anything more than “speculati[on]” as to\\nMonzel’s individual causal contribution to Amy’s harm. See\\nUnited States v. Monzel, Criminal Case No. 09-243 (GK), 2012\\nWL 12069547, at *6, *4 n.4 (D.D.C. Nov. 6, 2012) (emphasis\\nadded). Recognizing that the result was “most unpalatable,”\\nthe district court ruled that the government had left it no choice\\nbut to deny completely the restitution request. Id. at *6.\\n\\n The government appealed, and while that appeal was\\npending, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Paroline. See\\nParoline v. United States, No. 12-8561 (cert. granted, Jun. 27,\\n2013). Because that case involved the same victim, the same\\ncrime, and the same underlying legal question, we held the\\nappeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of\\nParoline. See Order, In re: Amy, Child Pornography Victim,\\nNo. 12-3093, 1:09-cr-00243-GK-1 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2013).\\n\\n Ten months later, the Supreme Court decided Paroline.\\n134 S. Ct. at 1710. Paroline rejected Amy’s theory of joint and\\nseveral liability, holding instead that restitution is available\\n“only to the extent the defendant’s offense proximately caused\\na victim’s losses.” Id. at 1722.\\n\\n This court vacated and remanded for the district court “to\\nredetermine restitution for Amy consistent with” the Paroline\\nframework. See Order, In re: Amy, Child Pornography Victim,\\nNo. 12-3093 (D.C. Cir. June 13, 2014).\\n\\f 6\\n\\n The district court then awarded Amy $7,500 in restitution.\\nSee United States v. Monzel, 209 F. Supp. 3d 73, 77 (D.D.C.\\n2016) (“Monzel II”). The court began, as Paroline directed, by\\ncalculating Amy’s total losses from the continued trafficking\\nof her image, finding that they amounted to $3,243,195. Id. at\\n76. That amount was based on “the Government’s second\\nrequest for restitution,” minus $20,563 for certain “specific\\nexpenses.” Id.\\n\\n To determine Monzel’s individual causal contribution, the\\ndistrict court tracked Paroline’s “guideposts,” 134 S. Ct. at\\n1728. The court adopted the government’s statement that, to\\nits knowledge, there had been “197 restitution orders on behalf\\nof Amy.” Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 76. The court also\\naccepted the government’s representation that it lacked\\n“sufficient, reliable data from which to make reasonable\\nestimates” of two other Paroline guideposts: the anticipated\\nnumber of future convictions related to Amy’s image, or of\\n“future offenders” who will possess and distribute Amy’s\\nimage while evading conviction. Id.\\n\\n Next, the district court found that Monzel’s possession of\\na single image of Amy made only a relatively “minor”\\ncontribution to her losses. Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 76.\\nBased on Monzel’s individual role, as well as information\\nabout “prior restitution awards for Amy,” the district court, “in\\nits discretion, determine[d] that an award of $7,500 in\\nrestitution [was] appropriate.” Id. at 77. That amount, the\\ndistrict court found, “comport[ed] with [Monzel’s] causal—but\\nminor—role in Amy’s ongoing losses resulting from the\\ncontinued trafficking of her images.” Id.\\n\\n Monzel appeals.\\n\\f 7\\n III\\n\\n We review a restitution order for an abuse of discretion,\\nand we “examine the factual findings underpinning the order\\nfor clear error.” In re Sealed Case, 702 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir.\\n2012). “A district court by definition abuses its discretion\\nwhen it makes an error of law.” Koon v. United States, 518\\nU.S. 81, 100 (1996).\\n\\n A\\n\\n We are not the first, and surely will not be the last, court\\nto wrestle with giving practical effect to Section 2259’s\\nproximate-cause test for mandatory restitution in the context of\\nchild-pornography offenses. While “every viewing” of a\\nchild’s pornographic image itself re-inflicts “the victim’s\\nabuse,” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727, no “discrete, readily\\ndefinable incremental loss” can easily be traced to each\\nindividual possessor’s exploitation of the image, id. 1726. As\\na result, there can be no “precise algorithm” for computing\\nindividual restitution awards. Id. at 1728.\\n\\n Here, as in Paroline, the defendant was a non-distributing\\npossessor of an image that thousands have trafficked.\\nParoline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727. In such cases, the perpetrator’s\\nrelative share “[sh]ould not be severe,” but neither should it be\\n“token or nominal.” Id. Instead, it should be “reasonable and\\ncircumscribed,” geared to the statute’s dual purposes of\\n“helping the victim achieve eventual restitution for all her\\nchild-pornography losses and impressing upon offenders the\\nfact that child-pornography crimes, even simple possession,\\naffect real victims.” Id.\\n\\n To that end, Paroline identified seven “rough guideposts”\\nthat district courts “might consider” in navigating between the\\n\\f 8\\nScylla and Charybdis of prohibited “severe” and “nominal”\\nawards. 134 S. Ct. at 1728. The considerations identified by\\nthe Court include:\\n\\n • “[W]hether the defendant reproduced or\\n distributed images of the victim”;\\n • “[W]hether the defendant had any connection to\\n the initial production of the images”;\\n • “[H]ow many images of the victim the defendant\\n possessed”;\\n • “[T]he number of past criminal defendants found\\n to have contributed to the victim’s general losses”;\\n • “[R]easonable predictions of the number of future\\n offenders likely to be caught and convicted for\\n crimes contributing to the victim’s general\\n losses”;\\n • “[A]ny available and reasonably reliable estimate\\n of the broader number of offenders involved (most\\n of whom will, of course, never be caught or\\n convicted)”; and\\n • “[O]ther facts relevant to the defendant’s relative\\n causal role.”\\n\\nId. The Court added that “restitution sought and ordered in\\nother [like] cases” could also be informative. Id. at 1729.\\n\\n The Supreme Court stressed that those factors are neither\\na mandatory checklist nor a “rigid formula,” but instead are\\nmeant to guide the sentencing court’s “wide discretion” and\\n“sound judgment.” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1728, 1729. Once\\na sentencing court has made its best judgment about a\\ndefendant’s relative share of causal blame, the resulting\\namount—if it is both “reasonable and circumscribed”—is then\\n“deemed the amount of the victim’s general losses”\\nproximately caused by the offense. Id. at 1728.\\n\\f 9\\n\\n B\\n\\n The district court’s decision in this case reflects a\\nreasonable exercise of discretion guided by the Paroline\\nguideposts and principles of analysis. The court began, as it\\nshould have, by calculating Amy’s general losses from the\\ntrafficking of her image. Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 76. The\\ncourt then marched carefully through each of Paroline’s factors\\nand delineated Monzel’s individual contribution to and\\nresponsibility for Amy’s losses. Id.; see also Paroline, 134 S.\\nCt. at 1727–1729. The court emphasized that Monzel\\npossessed “only one single image of Amy.” Monzel II, 209 F.\\nSupp. 3d at 76. There was no evidence he distributed her\\nimage, knew her, attempted to discover her identity or to\\ncontact her in any way, sought out her image in particular, paid\\nfor or sold her image, or “groom[ed] other minors for sexual\\nexploitation” using her image. Id. In view of Monzel’s real,\\nbut still “minor,” role, the court’s chosen award of $7,500 was\\nneither “severe,” nor “nominal,” but rather “reasonable and\\ncircumscribed” to fit Monzel’s contribution to Amy’s\\ndamages, Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727. That is all that Paroline\\nrequires.\\n\\n C\\n\\n Monzel’s arguments on appeal fall into three general\\nbuckets. First, he argues that the government failed to carry its\\nburden of proving “the amount of the loss sustained by a victim\\nas a result of the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e) (incorporated\\nby reference in 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(2)). Second, he asserts\\nthat the district court’s explanation for its award was\\ninsufficient and unreviewable. And he contends, thirdly, that\\nthe district court made several fatal factual mistakes. None of\\nthose challenges succeeds.\\n\\f 10\\n\\n 1\\n\\n Monzel offers a laundry list of asserted deficiencies in the\\ngovernment’s proof of the amount of Amy’s losses.\\nSpecifically, he objects that the government failed (i) to\\nidentify a particular amount of restitution, (ii) to formulate a\\ndiscrete methodology for the district court to follow, (iii) to\\nsubmit evidence about total offenders and future prosecutions,\\n(iv) to disaggregate Amy’s initial-abuse losses from her general\\nloss figure, and (v) to update the 2008 loss projections relied\\nupon by the district court. Monzel’s Br. 40–45. Those\\nobjections misunderstand the Paroline mission.\\n\\n At the outset, Monzel’s argument that the government’s\\nasserted evidentiary omissions preclude any award at all misses\\nthe mark. Monzel does not dispute that the district court put\\nthe burden of proof where it belonged—on the government. He\\nmakes no claim, for instance, that the district court erroneously\\nassigned him the burden of proof for any aspect of the case.\\nNor does Monzel dispute the government’s evidentiary\\nshowing that he possessed an image of Amy, and that Amy has\\n“outstanding losses caused by the continuing traffic in those\\nimages.” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727.\\n\\n Given that showing by the government and the court’s\\nagreement with it, an award of restitution was mandatory. 18\\nU.S.C. § 2259(b)(4). The only question, then, is whether the\\ndistrict court abused its discretion in calculating the award\\nbased on the record before it. See United States v. Dillard, 891\\nF.3d 151, 161 (4th Cir. 2018) (faulting the district court for\\ndenying recovery even though the government had proven the\\ndefendant possessed the victim’s image and that the victim had\\noutstanding losses from trafficking) (citing Paroline, 134 S. Ct.\\nat 1728); United States v. Rothenberg, 923 F.3d 1309, 1336–\\n\\f 11\\n1337 (11th Cir. 2019) (agreeing with Dillard that, once the\\ngovernment proves possession and outstanding losses,\\nrestitution must issue).\\n\\n So while the purported evidentiary gaps that Monzel has\\nidentified might bear upon the “reasonableness” of the amount\\nawarded, they would not let him off scot free. Cf. United States\\nv. Sainz, 827 F.3d 602, 607 (7th Cir. 2016) (explaining that\\nfailure of proof with respect to some Paroline factors “should\\nnot be a barrier to all compensation for victims of child\\npornography”).\\n\\n Viewed as challenges to the reasonableness of the\\nrestitution award, all five of Monzel’s evidentiary arguments\\nfail.\\n\\n First, Monzel complains that the government did not\\nrequest a specific amount of restitution on Amy’s behalf. But\\nthat is neither here nor there. A party’s claim for a particular\\namount of restitution is not proof of causation. Instead, Section\\n3664(e) requires the government to “demonstrat[e] the amount\\nof the loss,” not to propose a mathematical calculation or to\\nspecifically assert a dollar amount. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e)\\n(emphasis added). So the question on appeal is not what the\\ngovernment asked for, but what the district court found. We\\nare, after all, reviewing the district court’s judgment, not the\\nUnited States’ briefs. And the lack of a particular dollar\\namount in the government’s request does not, by itself,\\nestablish as a matter of law the “unreasonableness” of the\\ndistrict court’s order.\\n\\n Second, Monzel faults the government for failing to\\nproffer, and the district court for failing to adopt, a formulaic\\nmethodology for computing the restitution award. No dice.\\nWhat Paroline requires is that courts issue “reasonable and\\n\\f 12\\ncircumscribed” awards. 134 S. Ct. at 1727. Beyond that,\\nParoline was explicit that the district court’s judgment “cannot\\nbe a precise mathematical inquiry”; “algorithm[s]” and “rigid\\nformula[s]” are not required. Id. at 1728 (emphasis added); see\\nalso United States v. Rogers, 758 F.3d 37, 39 (1st Cir. 2014)\\n(per curiam) (affirming award in apparent absence of any\\nformula); Dillard, 891 F.3d at 161 (district court made\\n“fundamental error” when it decided not to order restitution\\nbecause it disagreed with government’s proposed formula); cf.\\nUnited States v. Halverson, 897 F.3d 645, 650 & n.1, 654 (5th\\nCir. 2018) (endorsing a diversity of calculation methods\\nbecause the Paroline factors “need not be converted into a rigid\\nformula”).\\n\\n Third, Monzel faults the government for failing to provide\\nestimates on two of the Paroline factors—the number of future\\nconvictions and the total offenders predicted to possess Amy’s\\nimage.\\n\\n Again, Paroline says otherwise. Those numbers were only\\ntwo among a number of “rough guideposts” flagged in\\nParoline. 134 S. Ct. at 1728. Those particular factors are not\\n“rigid” evidentiary requirements that the government is bound\\nto satisfy, or that the district court is obliged to analyze, in\\nevery restitution case. United States v. Bordman, 895 F.3d\\n1048, 1059 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at\\n1728), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1618 (Apr. 29, 2019). Instead,\\nthe factors are permissive, and a district court is generally free\\nto disregard them if it reasonably concludes they are\\nunknowable or otherwise uninstructive. See id.; Sainz, 827\\nF.3d at 606 (“We do not read Paroline as requiring district\\ncourts to consider in every case every factor mentioned.”);\\nUnited States v. Knapp, 695 F. App’x 985, 988 (8th Cir. 2017)\\n(“Paroline does not require an analysis of each of its\\npermissive factors.”).\\n\\f 13\\n\\n Of course, it may not be reasonable for a district court to\\ndisregard those guideposts that describe the essential character\\nof the individual perpetrator’s offense, such as the number of\\nimages possessed and the number of acts of distribution. Those\\nfacts would generally seem to be indispensable to evaluating a\\ndefendant’s relative causal role.\\n\\n In addition to the nature of the perpetrator’s role, the\\nnumber of images involved, and the number of acts of\\ndistribution, there can be “other facts relevant to the\\ndefendant’s relative causal role,” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1728,\\nwhich often will include: (i) the frequency of views and shares,\\nbecause “every viewing * * * is a repetition of the victim’s\\nabuse,” id. at 1727; (ii) the means by which the images were\\nacquired (e.g., the trading of other images in exchange, the\\npayment of money encouraging the abuse, requests for images\\nof escalating levels of abuse); (iii) any stalking or attempts at\\nvictim contact; (iv) the defendant’s individual contribution to\\nthe market for the victim’s image over time—that is, whether\\nhe sought out this particular victim’s images, the length of his\\ninvolvement in child pornography, whether he displayed a\\npattern of offenses, and whether he has distributed other\\nimages; and (v) the use of images to groom other children for\\nabuse or exposure to pornography. Additional considerations\\nmay also include the imperative of ensuring that the individual\\nperpetrator is internalizing the costs of harm to the victim, and\\nthe need to deter recidivism by encouraging the perpetrator to\\nexpress remorse, to obtain treatment, or to otherwise pursue\\nrehabilitative steps that will prevent him from generating\\nfurther demand for child pornography.\\n\\n But the factors Monzel cites—those seeking to predict the\\nfuture behavior of third parties—will often have less salience.\\nFor starters, those factors are aimed mainly at preventing over-\\n\\f 14\\ncompensation of the victim, which is not an issue in this case\\n(or in many cases).\\n\\n Beyond that, many courts have concluded that, as\\nrestitution factors, future convictions and total offenders are\\n“virtually unknown and unknowable.” United States v.\\nCrisostomi, 31 F. Supp. 3d 361, 364 (D.R.I. 2014); see United\\nStates v. Hite, 113 F. Supp. 3d 91, 96 (D.D.C. 2015); United\\nStates v. DiLeo, 58 F. Supp. 3d 239, 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2014);\\nUnited States v. Wencewicz, 63 F. Supp. 3d 1238, 1246 (D.\\nMont. 2014), vacated and remanded on other grounds, United\\nStates v. Grovo, 653 F. App’x 512 (9th Cir. 2016); United\\nStates v. Moody, CR 417–256, 2018 WL 3887506, at *3 (S.D.\\nGa. Aug. 15, 2018); United States v. Reddick, CASE No. 2:17-\\nCR-208-WKW, 2018 WL 445112, at *6 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 16,\\n2018); United States v. Ayer, Case No. 2:15-cr-86-APG-NJK,\\n2015 WL 7259765, at *2 n.2 (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2015); United\\nStates v. Romero-Medrano, 2017 WL 5177647, at *4 (S.D.\\nTex. Nov. 8, 2017); United States v. Schultz, CRIMINAL\\nACTION NO. 14-10085-RGS, 2015 WL 5972421, at *2 (D.\\nMass. Oct. 14, 2015); United States v. Gamble, No. 1:10–CR–\\n137, 2015 WL 4162924, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. July 9, 2015);\\nUnited States v. Campbell-Zorn, No. CR–14–41–BLG–SPW,\\n2014 WL 7215214, at *6 (D. Mont. Dec. 17, 2014); United\\nStates v. Bellah, No. 13–10169–EFM, 2014 WL 7073287, at\\n*3 (D. Kan. Dec. 12, 2014); United States v. McIntosh, No.\\n4:14cr28, 2014 WL 5422215, at *6 (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 2014);\\nUnited States v. Daniel, No. 3:07–CR–142–O, 2014 WL\\n5314834, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2014); United States v.\\nReynolds, No. 12–20843, 2014 WL 4187936, at *6 (E.D. Mich.\\nAug. 22, 2014); United States v. Watkins, No. 2:13–cr–00268\\nLKK AC, 2014 WL 3966381, at *6–7 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13,\\n2014); accord Sainz, 827 F.3d at 607 (This information “may\\nnot even be reliably known.”); United States v. Grovo, 826 F.3d\\n\\f 15\\n1207, 1221 (9th Cir. 2016) (same); United States v. Evans, 802\\nF.3d 942, 950 (8th Cir. 2015) (same).\\n\\n The bottom line is that that Paroline provided a “starting\\npoint” for the district courts’ analyses. The Supreme Court did\\nnot carve its permissive guideposts into doctrinal stone. See\\nParoline, 134 S. Ct. at 1728. In many cases, the district courts\\nhave concluded that total offenders and future convictions are\\nunknowable and uninstructive. The government in this case\\nstated that it lacked “sufficient, reliable data from which to\\nmake reasonable estimates” of the number of future\\nconvictions likely to involve images of Amy. Monzel II, 209\\nF. Supp. 3d at 76. The government added that it has no way to\\nestimate the broader number of offenders who possess images\\nof Amy. Id. The district court accepted both representations.\\nId. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse\\nits discretion by focusing instead on the more defendant-\\nfocused and market-perpetuating factors, as well as the\\npractical impact of the award. See id. at 77.\\n\\n Fourth, the district court relied upon a 2008 economic\\nreport that estimated Amy would suffer $512,681 in future\\ntreatment expenses and $2,751,077 in future vocational losses.\\nMonzel argues that the government was obligated to update the\\nreport with the actual rather than predicted cost projections for\\nthe period between 2009 and 2015, and to adjust the report’s\\nfuture projections based upon more recent developments in\\nAmy’s treatment patterns.\\n\\n But a determination of Monzel’s relative causal role does\\nnot require a perpetual nickeling and diming of the victim\\nthrough the imposition of a never-ending accounting\\nrequirement—a mandate that would force the victim to\\nconstantly confront the growing number of offenders who trade\\nin her image.\\n\\f 16\\n\\n In any event, Monzel has not shown that, without his\\nrequested adjustments, there would be a significant temporal\\ngap or a material dollar disparity between the initial projection\\nand actual costs. For example, the projected treatment costs for\\nthe 2009 to 2015 period constituted only a minute fraction of\\nAmy’s losses. And even then, the record reveals no clear\\ndisparity between the report’s projections and the costs actually\\nincurred. Cf. FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(a). As for Amy’s future\\ntreatment, the record confirms the core assumptions that\\nunderlay the 2008 projections. In other words, on this record,\\ndemanding an update for the sake of an update would not be\\nworth the candle.\\n\\n Fifth, Monzel argues that the district court was required to\\nformally backout of Amy’s lifetime of psychological treatment\\nand social and vocational impacts those future damages\\nattributable to both her initial abuse and the initial distribution\\nof her image. That argument, again, seeks to impose a\\nmathematical rigidity that Paroline eschews. The Supreme\\nCourt made “connection to the initial production of the images”\\none of several factors that could be considered. See Paroline,\\n572 U.S. at 460. Here, the district court expressly took into\\naccount that Monzel was in no way “connected to the initial\\nproduction” of Amy’s images. Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at\\n76. Paroline requires no more than that.\\n\\n The argument also proves too much. Courts already\\nconsider whether the defendant’s conduct was connected to\\n“the initial production of the images.” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at\\n1728. Monzel’s demand that courts also mathematically\\ndisaggregate the losses from before the images entered the\\nmarketplace simply blinks away the compounding effects of\\ndemand for child-pornography images on their production in\\nthe first place. It also ignores the distinct harm that Amy\\n\\f 17\\nsuffered upon learning that the images of her already-\\ncompleted abuse were being viewed for pleasure by\\nperpetrators like Monzel. Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1717. For the\\ntype of long-term harms at issue here, courts cannot be\\nexpected to formally disaggregate the intertwined. See\\nBordman, 895 F.3d at 1059 (explaining that it would transform\\nParoline’s “rough guideposts” into a “rigid formula” to treat\\ninitial-abuse disaggregation as a threshold requirement)\\n(citation omitted); Rothenberg, 923 F.3d at 1333–1334 (same);\\ncf. United States v. Miner, 617 F. App’x 102, 103 (2d Cir.\\n2015) (explaining that, in the disaggregation context, Paroline\\ndoes not require a “detailed accounting”).\\n\\n The Ninth Circuit has taken the opposite tack. See United\\nStates v. Galan, 804 F.3d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir. 2015) (reading\\nParoline as “plainly perceiv[ing] a need for separation”). But\\nin our view, that court’s categorical test demands a level of\\nforensic precision in the causal analysis that fails to account for\\nthe synergistic effect of possessors’ demand for images on the\\nharms unleashed by production. The complexity of the Ninth\\nCircuit’s approach also demands in most cases more linear\\nprecision than a comparative “relative” causal role seeks to\\nmeasure. Not to mention the continuing need to ensure,\\nthrough the award, that each perpetrator internalizes the costs\\nof his actions. See Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727 (describing goal\\nof “impressing upon offenders the fact that child-pornography\\ncrimes, even simple possession, affect real victims”).\\n\\n The test’s difficulties are seemingly reflected in the large\\nnumber of district court cases within the Ninth Circuit in which\\nvictims have been denied restitution because the government\\ncannot meet its “impossible [evidentiary] task” of\\ndisaggregating, in a coherent way, a victim’s lifetime of costs\\nfrom the marketing of her images. See United States v. Chan,\\nCR No. 15-00224 DKW, 2016 WL 370712, at *2 (D. Haw.\\n\\f 18\\nJan. 29, 2016) (denying recovery because government could\\nnot surmount the “monumental difficulty associated with * * *\\ndisaggregation”); accord United States v. Kugler, No. CR 14-\\n73-BLG-SPW, 2016 WL 816741, at *3 (D. Mont. Feb. 29,\\n2016) (same); cf. United States v. Young, 703 F. App’x 520,\\n521 (9th Cir. 2017) (unpublished decision reversing for failure\\nto disaggregate); United States v. Massa, 647 F. App’x 718,\\n721 (9th Cir. 2016) (same); United States v. Blurton, 623 F.\\nApp’x 318, 319 (9th Cir. 2015) (same); Campbell-Zorn, 2014\\nWL 7215214, at *4 (Disaggregation “only seems possible in\\nthe rather unique situation presented in Paroline where there is\\nsome kind of demarcation between the losses from the initial\\nabuse and the losses from continued trafficking.”) (emphasis\\nomitted).2\\n\\n 2\\n\\n In addition to those evidentiary objections, Monzel takes\\naim at the district court’s reasoning. He argues, first, that the\\nopinion is so devoid of analysis as to be unreviewable for all\\nintents and purposes. Monzel’s Br. 46. Monzel contends,\\nsecondly, that the district court wrongly failed to address “any”\\n\\n 2\\n Certain statements from the Tenth Circuit’s decision in United\\nStates v. Dunn, 777 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2015), could also be read to\\nendorse a categorical disaggregation requirement. See, e.g., id. at\\n1181. But context is everything, and the Tenth Circuit made its\\nstatements in the course of overturning a trial court decision that had\\nheld a distributor jointly and severally liable with the abuser for the\\nentirety of the outstanding losses. So disaggregation, as Dunn\\ndeployed the concept, may have meant simply that distributors and\\npossessors should pay only for their relative roles. See Rothenberg,\\n923 F.3d at 1333 (“Dunn must be read in the factual context of a\\nreversal of a district court’s ruling that a defendant was jointly and\\nseverally liable with all other defendants, including the abuser, for\\nthe entirety of the victim’s * * * total losses[.]”).\\n\\f 19\\nof his mitigation arguments. Id. at 47. Both challenges are\\nmistaken.\\n\\n As for reviewability, district courts generally are required\\nto “articulate the specific factual findings underlying * * *\\nrestitution order[s] in order to enable appellate review.” United\\nStates v. Fair, 699 F.3d 508, 513 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (citations\\nomitted); cf. Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959,\\n1965 (2018) (with respect to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s sentencing\\nfactors, district court’s explanation must be sufficient “to allow\\nfor meaningful appellate review” in “the circumstances of the\\nparticular case”).\\n\\n The district court’s opinion here easily passes that test.\\nThe court discussed each of the Paroline factors, emphasizing\\nand delineating Monzel’s relatively “minor” role. Monzel II,\\n209 F. Supp. 3d at 76–77. Whether or not those record-based\\ndeterminations are correct, they are certainly amenable to\\nappellate review.\\n\\n Monzel insists the district court opinion must leave “some\\nway for [us] to trace the derivation of the court’s $7,500\\naward[.]” Monzel’s Br. 46 (second emphasis added). The\\nquestion, however, is not whether the district court showed\\nevery step of its homework. The decision being made is one of\\nreasoned judgment, not formulaic computation. Cf. Chavez-\\nMeza, 138 S. Ct. at 1964 (In sentencing, “[t]he appropriateness\\nof brevity or length, conciseness or detail, when to write, what\\nto say, depends upon circumstances.”) (quoting Rita v. United\\nStates, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).\\n\\n So we ask only whether the district court reasonably\\nexercised its discretion in weighing the Paroline and other\\nrelevant factors, applying them to the record in this case, and\\nthen choosing a “circumscribed” award that is consistent with\\n\\f 20\\nthe restitutionary purposes of the statutory scheme. See\\nParoline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727; Massa, 647 F. App’x at 720\\n(upholding restitution award even though “[i]t would have been\\nhelpful for the court to have provided more detail as to how it\\nreached the $8,000 figure for each victim,” because “the\\nawards appear ‘reasonable and circumscribed,’ and neither\\n‘token or nominal’ nor ‘severe’”); accord United States v.\\nBeckmann, 786 F.3d 672, 683 (8th Cir. 2015). The district\\ncourt did just that, discussing the relevant factors and\\nemphasizing Monzel’s limited role as the possessor of a single\\nimage. Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 76–77.\\n\\n Taking a 180-degree turn, Monzel next argues that the\\ndistrict court was too mathematical in its approach. Monzel\\nspeculates that the district court randomly selected five post-\\nParoline awards, averaged the amounts to $7,432.63, and\\nrounded that figure “to an even $7,500.” Monzel’s Br. 37, 45.\\nBut that reconstruction of the district court’s reasoning is as\\nimplausible as it is uncharitable. First, Monzel concedes that\\nhis argument fudged the math. His calculation relied upon the\\n$7,500 that was in fact “award[ed]” in United States v. Bellah,\\nNo. 13–10169–EFM, 2014 WL 7073287 (D. Kan. Dec. 12,\\n2014), rather than the $7,000 figure cited by the district court\\nbelow. Monzel’s Br. 37 n.15.\\n\\n Anyhow, the district court here explained that its decision\\nwas based on “the parties’ arguments, the relevant Paroline\\nfactors, * * * and * * * information provided regarding prior\\nrestitution awards for Amy,” and not on the small and random\\nsampling of post-Paroline awards stressed in Monzel’s\\nbriefing. See Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 77 (emphasis\\nadded). We take the district court at its word. For more than a\\ndecade, the court has been immersed in this litigation and,\\nthroughout, has consistently demonstrated a good-faith effort\\nto properly implement the evolving legal standard for\\n\\f 21\\nrestitution awards. See, e.g., id.; Monzel, 2012 WL 12069547,\\nat *4; Monzel, 2011 WL 10549405, at *2. There is no basis for\\nimputing a hidden and arbitrary decisionmaking process to the\\ncourt.\\n\\n Monzel’s next objection is that the district court “did not\\naddress any of [his] arguments in mitigation[.]” Monzel’s Br.\\n47. That argument falls flat. A sentencing court must generally\\nconsider all “nonfrivolous arguments for mitigation.” See\\nUnited States v. Bigley, 786 F.3d 11, 12, 14 (D.C. Cir. 2015);\\naccord United States v. McKeever, 824 F.3d 1113, 1125–1126\\n(D.C. Cir. 2016). And that is what the district court did here.\\nIt acknowledged Monzel’s “minor” role, and it specifically\\nemphasized the lack of evidence that Monzel (i) knew Amy,\\nattempted to discover her identity, or attempted to contact her;\\n(ii) sought out images of Amy in particular; (iii) paid for or\\nreceived anything of value for her images; or (iv) groomed\\nother minors with her images. See Monzel II, 209 F. Supp. 3d\\nat 76. With all of those considerations factored into the\\nultimate award, id. at 77, Monzel fails to identify any material\\nmitigation arguments that the district court did not address.\\n\\n 3\\n\\n Finally, Monzel offers a laundry list of factual errors he\\ndeems fatal to the district court’s judgment. None are.\\n\\n First, he argues that the district court wrongly read Monzel\\nI as setting a $5,000 floor below which his restitution payment\\ncould not go. And that erroneous starting point, Monzel\\ncontends, tainted the ultimate $7,500 award.\\n\\n That argument is doubly flawed. As an exegetical matter,\\nthe district court’s construction of Monzel I was quite\\nreasonable. This court was explicit that it was “grant[ing]\\n\\f 22\\n[Amy’s] petition” because “the $5,000 the court awarded was,\\nby [the district court’s] own acknowledgement, less than the\\namount of harm Monzel caused Amy[.]” Monzel I, 641 F.3d at\\n534 (emphasis added). While the district court could have\\nfound that the dollar amount changed, the admonition not to\\norder restitution in an amount less than what Monzel caused\\nremained in place.\\n\\n As a factual matter, the district court never indicated in any\\nway that the $5,000 floor tied its hands in the wake of Paroline,\\nsomehow forcing it to award more restitution than warranted.\\nSee Order, In re: Amy, Child Pornography Victim, No. 12-3093\\n(D.C. Cir. June 13, 2014) (directing the district court “to\\nredetermine restitution for Amy consistent with” the causation\\nframework set out in Paroline). Monzel points to nothing in\\nthe district court’s opinion that even hints that its post-Paroline\\nanalysis proceeded with a $5000 weight already on the\\ndamages scale.\\n\\n Second, Monzel claims the district court made a pair of\\nfactual errors, subtracting both too much and too little from\\nAmy’s general loss figure. According to him, the court should\\nhave subtracted $7,186 to exclude damages incurred prior to\\nMonzel’s arrest in 2009, and also should not have subtracted\\n$20,563 in attorney’s fees because Amy’s submission\\nconsisted exclusively of vocational and treatment expenses. As\\nto the purported $7,186 over-inclusion of loss, the impact—if\\nany—in determining Monzel’s share of Amy’s more than $3\\nmillion in losses is at best de minimis, and at worst incalculable.\\nAnd as to the asserted underestimation of Amy’s general\\nlosses, that could only have inured to Monzel’s benefit. See\\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 52(a) (reversal only for prejudicial error). No\\nharm, no foul.\\n\\f 23\\n Third, Monzel faults the district court for failing to\\nmention the amount of Amy’s then-to-date recovery. That\\nargument asks the wrong question. Under Paroline, restitution\\nreflects not Monzel’s share of Amy’s unpaid balance, but rather\\nhis contribution to her “general losses”—“the aggregate losses,\\nincluding the costs of psychiatric treatment and lost income,\\nthat stem from the ongoing traffic in her images as a whole.”\\nParoline, 134 S. Ct. at 1722. The harm that Monzel caused\\ndoes not change just because other sources of compensation\\nmay have surfaced. Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(4)(B) (barring\\ndistrict courts from “declin[ing] to issue [restitution] because\\nof * * * the fact that a victim has, or is entitled to, receive\\ncompensation for his or her injuries from the proceeds of\\ninsurance or any other source”).\\n\\n Lastly, Monzel returns to the “math.” He claims that\\n$7,500 cannot represent his actual contribution to Amy’s losses\\nbecause it “essentially assumes that Mr. Monzel is one of 432\\npeople ($3,243,195/$7,500) who have harmed and will harm\\nAmy,” when in fact thousands continue to trade in her image.\\nMonzel’s Br. 52. Any effort to apportion Amy’s losses evenly\\namong the full universe of offenders would, by Monzel’s\\naccount, yield something between fifteen dollars and less than\\na penny.\\n\\n That is exactly the reasoning that Paroline rejected. See\\n134 S. Ct. at 1734 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (finding it “hard\\nto see how a court fairly assessing this defendant’s relative\\ncontribution could do anything” other than “impose ‘trivial\\nrestitution orders’”) (citation omitted). Under Paroline,\\nrestitution is a matter of “discretion and sound judgment,” not\\nan exercise in long division. 134 S. Ct. at 1728 (majority op.)\\n(no “trivial” awards); id. at 1744 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting)\\n(“[A] truly proportional approach to restitution would lead to\\nan award of just $47 against any individual defendant.\\n\\f 24\\nCongress obviously did not intend that outcome, and the Court\\nwisely refuses to permit it.”) (citation omitted).\\n\\n *****\\n\\n Restitution in child pornography cases is meant to address\\nthe very real and reverberating trauma that attends each\\nperpetrator’s acquisition and viewing of a victim’s image.\\n“[C]hild pornography is ‘a permanent record’ of the depicted\\nchild’s abuse, and ‘the harm to the child is [only further]\\nexacerbated by [its] circulation.’” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1717\\n(third alteration in original) (quoting New York v. Ferber, 458\\nU.S. 747, 759 (1982)); cf. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 111\\n(1990) (Child pornography “haunt[s] [the victim] in years to\\ncome.”). What Monzel’s slide-rule approach fails to come to\\ngrips with is that the harm to Amy became greater, not less,\\nwhen he joined the ranks of perpetrators, reinflicting and\\nperpetuating her trauma. To value that pain in pennies would\\nmake the restitution statute an insult to the victims. It would\\nalso wrongly allow the individual possessor to hide among the\\nsea of wrongdoers. The district court was correct to hold\\nMonzel accountable for the harm that he caused by acquiring\\nand viewing for personal pleasure the image of Amy’s abuse.\\n\\n The judgment of the district court is affirmed.\\n\\n So ordered.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3463,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4641196,"string":"4,641,196"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner v. INGREDION INCORPORATED, D/B/A Penford Products Co., Respondent Local 100G, Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Intervenor"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ingredion Inc."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-19"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1155; C/w 18-1244"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Rogers, Srinivasan, Wilkins\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Opinion for the court by Circuit Judge ROGERS\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued May 6, 2019 Decided July 19, 2019\\n\\n No. 18-1155\\n\\n NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,\\n PETITIONER\\n\\n v.\\n\\n INGREDION INCORPORATED, D/B/A PENFORD PRODUCTS CO.,\\n RESPONDENT\\n\\nLOCAL 100G, BAKERY, CONFECTIONERY, TOBACCO WORKERS\\nAND GRAIN MILLERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC,\\n INTERVENOR\\n\\n\\n Consolidated with 18-1244\\n\\n\\n On Petition for Review and Cross-Application\\n for Enforcement of an Order of\\n the National Labor Relations Board\\n\\n\\n Brian J. Paul argued the cause for petitioner Ingredion\\nIncorporated. With him on the briefs were Stuart R. Buttrick,\\nRyan J. Funk, Jeffrey P. Justman, and Kyle J. Essley.\\n\\n Eric Weitz, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board,\\nargued the cause for respondent National Labor Relations\\n\\f 2\\n\\nBoard. With him on the brief were Peter B. Robb, General\\nCounsel, David S. Habenstreit, Assistant General Counsel, and\\nUsha Dheenan, Supervisory Attorney.\\n\\n Before: ROGERS, SRINIVASAN, and WILKINS, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n\\n Opinion for the court by Circuit Judge ROGERS.\\n\\n ROGERS, Circuit Judge: Ingredion, Inc. petitions for\\nreview of the Decision and Order of the National Labor\\nRelations Board on the ground that five of the Board’s findings,\\nincluding that Ingredion violated the National Labor Relations\\nAct (“the Act”) by dealing directly with employees and\\ndenigrating a union in the eyes of employees, are unsupported\\nby substantial evidence. We conclude that Ingredion fails to\\nmeet its burden in this regard. We further conclude that\\nIngredion’s contentions that the Board violated its due process\\nrights and improperly imposed a notice-reading remedy lack\\nmerit. Accordingly, we deny the petition and grant the Board’s\\ncross-application for enforcement of its Order.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Ingredion is a multinational corn starch manufacturing\\ncompany. In March 2015, it acquired a corn processing plant\\nin Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Approximately 165 of the plant’s\\nemployees were represented by a local division of the Bakery,\\nConfectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers\\nInternational Union, AFL-CIO (“the Union”). Ingredion\\nrecognized the Union and assumed the existing collective\\nbargaining agreement (“CBA”), which was scheduled to expire\\non August 1, 2015. On June 1, 2015, Ingredion and the Union\\ncommenced negotiations for a new CBA. The Union proposed\\nto modify the existing CBA in several ways. Ingredion\\n\\f 3\\n\\nproposed to start from scratch with an entirely new CBA in\\nboth substance and form. The parties had not reached an\\nagreement as of August 18, when Ingredion declared that they\\nwere at impasse and presented its “last, best, and final offer.”\\nAfter rejecting the Union’s counteroffer of September 10,\\nIngredion unilaterally implemented the terms of its final offer\\non September 14, 2015. Ten days later, the Union filed charges\\nwith the Board alleging that Ingredion had engaged in\\nnumerous unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1)\\nand (5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), (5). The Board’s\\nGeneral Counsel issued a complaint against Ingredion in\\nJanuary 2016.\\n\\n Section 8(a)(1) and Section 8(a)(5) define unfair labor\\npractices in overlapping terms. Section 8(a)(1) provides that it\\nis “an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with,\\nrestrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of” their right to\\nbargain collectively. Id. § 158(a)(1). Section 8(a)(5) provides\\nthat it is “an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to\\nbargain collectively with the representatives of his employees.”\\nId. § 158(a)(5). Because a refusal to bargain necessarily\\ninterferes with bargaining, “an employer who violates section\\n8(a)(5) also, derivatively, violates section 8(a)(1).” Exxon\\nChem. Co. v. NLRB, 386 F.3d 1160, 1164 (D.C. Cir. 2004).\\n\\n An administrative law judge determined, after conducting\\nan evidentiary hearing, that Ingredion had committed several\\nviolations of Section 8(a). As relevant here, the ALJ found that\\nIngredion had violated Section 8(a)(1) by “denigrating the\\nUnion” in the eyes of employees and by “threatening\\nemployees that they would lose their jobs if they went on\\nstrike.” Ingredion, Inc., No. 18-CA-160654, slip op. at 58–59,\\n2016 WL 4501993 (NLRB Div. of Judges Aug. 26, 2016)\\n(“ALJ Decision”). He further found that Ingredion had violated\\nSection 8(a)(5) (and, derivatively, Section 8(a)(1)) by dealing\\n\\f 4\\n\\nwith employees directly rather than through the Union, by\\nunilaterally implementing new terms and conditions of\\nemployment without first reaching an overall impasse in\\nbargaining, and by failing to respond in a timely manner to a\\nUnion request for information. Id. at 58.\\n\\n The Board affirmed with respect to all five violations.\\nIngredion, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 74, slip op. at 1–2 & nn.1–3\\n(May 1, 2018) (“Decision”). It directed Ingredion to cease and\\ndesist from its violations of the Act, rescind the unilaterally\\nimplemented terms and conditions of employment, and\\ncompensate employees for losses incurred as a result of its\\nviolations. Id. at 2–3 (“Order”). In addition, the Board ordered\\nIngredion to have its chief negotiator, Ken Meadows, read a\\nnotice describing these remedies to assembled employees “or\\npermit a Board agent, in the presence of Meadows and other\\ncorporate officials responsible for labor relations, to read the\\nnotice to employees.” Id. at 3. One Board Member dissented\\nfrom the latter portion of the Order. See Decision at 1 n.2.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n The Board’s factual findings are conclusive “if supported\\nby substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.”\\n29 U.S.C. § 160(e); see, e.g., Elastic Stop Nut Div. of Harvard\\nIndus., Inc. v. NLRB, 921 F.2d 1275, 1279 (D.C. Cir. 1990)\\n(citing Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 487–\\n88 (1951)). Substantial evidence “means such relevant\\nevidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to\\nsupport a conclusion.” E.g., Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at\\n477 (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229\\n(1938)); King Soopers, Inc. v. NLRB, 859 F.3d 23, 29 (D.C.\\nCir. 2017). The court, consequently, must affirm the Board’s\\nfindings unless “no reasonable factfinder” could find as it did.\\nAlden Leeds, Inc. v. NLRB, 812 F.3d 159, 165 (D.C. Cir. 2016)\\n\\f 5\\n\\n(quoting Bally’s Park Place, Inc. v. NLRB, 646 F.3d 929, 935\\n(D.C. Cir. 2011)). The court’s assessment of the Board’s\\ndecision occurs in light of Congress’s broad delegation to the\\nBoard to carry out the Act, see, e.g., NLRB v. Curtin Matheson\\nSci., Inc., 494 U.S. 775, 786 (1990); Allied Mech. Servs., Inc.\\nv. NLRB, 668 F.3d 758, 764–65 (D.C. Cir. 2012), and\\nrecognition that matters involving the interpretation of\\nincidents between management and labor will often turn on the\\nBoard’s assessment of events in light of its expertise in the area\\nof labor relations, see, e.g., Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB,\\n324 U.S. 793, 800 (1945); United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. NLRB,\\n387 F.3d 908, 913 (D.C. Cir. 2004).\\n\\n 1. Direct dealing. The Board found that Ingredion\\nengaged in direct dealing with employees when its chief\\nnegotiator, Ken Meadows, first visited the plant on April 6,\\n2015. Decision at 1 n.1. Ingredion acknowledges that\\nMeadows spoke to at least five employees during that visit but\\nmaintains that his “impromptu conversations” with them were\\ntoo “brief and general” to constitute direct dealing. See Pet’r’s\\nBr. 38–41.\\n\\n Section 9(a) of the Act obligates an employer to treat union\\nofficials as “the exclusive representatives of [its] employees.”\\n29 U.S.C. § 159(a). The Supreme Court has held that this\\nobligation includes “the negative duty to treat with no other.”\\nMedo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 678, 683–84\\n(1944) (quoting NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301\\nU.S. 1, 44 (1937)). It is therefore “an infringement of the Act\\nfor the employer to disregard the bargaining representative by\\nnegotiating with individual employees, whether a majority or a\\nminority, with respect to wages, hours and working\\nconditions.” Id. at 684.\\n\\f 6\\n\\n Under Board precedent, an employer violates Section\\n8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act if it “attempt[s] to arm itself for\\nupcoming negotiations” by directly “soliciting the sentiment of\\nthe employees on a subject to be discussed at the bargaining\\ntable.” Harris-Teeter Super Mkts., Inc., 310 NLRB 216, 217\\n(1993); see Obie Pac., Inc., 196 NLRB 458, 458–59 (1972).\\nFor example, the employer in Harris-Teeter exercised a\\ncontractual right to temporarily change its employees’ work\\nschedule amid ongoing negotiations with the union and then\\nasked the employees if they “liked the change” or had other\\ncomments about it. 310 NLRB at 216. The Board held that\\nthis solicitation of employee views on a subject of negotiation\\nviolated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) because it “usurp[ed] the\\n[u]nion’s function.” Id. at 217.\\n\\n The record shows that less than two months before the start\\nof negotiations with the Union over a new collective bargaining\\nagreement, Meadows spent approximately 25 minutes\\nspeaking with employees about subjects that were to be\\naddressed during the negotiations. He criticized the work\\nschedules and health insurance benefits provided by the\\nexisting CBA and asked what the employees hoped to see in a\\nnew agreement. They expressed interest in a wage raise of 3 to\\n3.5 percent, an increased pension multiplier, different work\\nschedules, more vacation days, and health insurance coverage\\nfor early retirees. Meadows told the employees that any wage\\nincrease would be “in the range of 2 to 2.5 percent,” that the\\nhealth insurance policy would be changed, and that the pension\\nmultiplier would not be increased because “pensions were a\\nthing of the past and ‘would probably be going away.’” ALJ\\nDecision at 7, 37–38 (quoting Hr’g Tr. 61 (Apr. 18, 2016)).\\nEmployees who had worked at the plant and been represented\\nby the Union for decades testified that they had never had a\\nmanager or supervisor approach them to discuss contract\\nnegotiations prior to Ingredion’s takeover of the plant.\\n\\f 7\\n\\n\\n Ingredion does not dispute that Meadows had direct\\ncontact with employees and solicited their views about key\\nterms in soon-to-be-commenced bargaining with the Union.\\nWhether such contact is too brief or informal to constitute a\\nviolation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) is the type of on-the-ground\\nassessment that “implicates [the Board’s] expertise in labor\\nrelations,” United Servs., 387 F.3d at 913 (alteration in\\noriginal) (quoting NLRB v. City Disposal Sys., Inc., 465 U.S.\\n822, 829 (1984)). Ingredion points to nothing in the record\\nconsidered as a whole that would cause the court to doubt the\\nreasonableness of the Board’s finding. The Board’s finding\\nrests on substantial evidence that Meadows’ conduct\\n“undermine[d] the exclusive agency relationship” between the\\nUnion and its members, Obie Pac., 196 NLRB at 459,\\nillustrating one of the ills Congress sought to guard against by\\nenacting Sections 8(a) and 9(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a),\\n159(a).\\n\\n 2. Denigration of the Union. The Board found that one\\nof Ingredion’s managers unlawfully denigrated the Union in\\nthe eyes of employees by falsely representing that it was\\nunwilling to negotiate on certain subjects. See Decision at 1\\nn.1. Ingredion contends that the manager did not violate the\\nAct because he made only “a non-actionable statement of\\nopinion, not a ‘threat of reprisal or force or promise of\\nbenefit.’” Pet’r’s Br. 44 (quoting NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co.,\\n395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969)).\\n\\n Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it unlawful for an\\nemployer to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees”\\nwith respect to collective bargaining. 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).\\nSection 8(c), however, permits an employer to express a\\n“view[], argument, or opinion” about bargaining so long as it\\ndoes not threaten or coerce the employees. Id. § 158(c). In\\n\\f 8\\n\\nGissel Packing, 395 U.S. at 620, the Supreme Court\\ndistinguished the statements of opinion protected under Section\\n8(c) from “coercive . . . overstatements” that an employer “has\\nreason to believe will mislead his employees.”\\n\\n The Board has held that an employer violates Section\\n8(a)(1) by “misrepresent[ing] the [u]nion’s bargaining\\npositions” in a way that “tends to undermine” employee\\nsupport for the union. Miller Waste Mills, Inc., 334 NLRB 466,\\n467–68 (2001), enforced, 315 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2003); see\\nFaro Screen Process, Inc., 362 NLRB 718, 718–19 (2015). In\\nMiller Waste Mills, for example, the employer sent employees\\na letter that “blamed the [u]nion for preventing the employees\\nfrom receiving their customary annual wage increase,” 334\\nNLRB at 467, even though the employer “believed that the\\n[u]nion had given its blessing to a wage increase,” id. at 479.\\nThe Board ruled that the letter violated Section 8(a)(1) because\\nit caused the employees to lose faith in their union\\nrepresentatives and thus interfered with their ability to bargain\\ncollectively. Id. at 467.\\n\\n The record shows that Ingredion’s manager told an\\nemployee in early July not to sign his retirement papers because\\n“there was a better contract coming” and he “would like the\\nretirement that [Ingredion] was going to propose.” ALJ\\nDecision at 30. The manager also told the employee not to “let\\na few people in the union body sway what [he] want[ed] to do.”\\nId. (quoting Hr’g Tr. 727 (Apr. 21, 2016)). The manager\\nclaimed that Ingredion’s chief labor negotiator, Meadows, had\\ngiven him permission to discuss the topic with employees. Id.\\n\\n The record further shows that shortly after speaking with\\nthe first employee, this manager approached another employee\\nwho was considering retirement and told him to contact his\\nunion representatives and “have them get a hold of the\\n\\f 9\\n\\ncompany and start negotiating.” Id. (quoting Hr’g Tr. 740 (Apr.\\n21, 2016)). In fact, the parties had already held three\\nbargaining sessions and had scheduled additional sessions for\\nthe entire week of July 27. Id. at 11–13. The manager told this\\nsecond employee the “pension is negotiable, the hours, wages\\nare negotiable, everything is negotiable.” Id. at 30 (quoting\\nHr’g Tr. 740). The second employee testified that after\\nconferring with the first employee, he concluded that Ingredion\\nhad “‘a lot to give’” them, that “the Union was not telling\\n[them] everything,” and that the parties “needed to get together\\nand negotiate.” Id. at 31 (quoting Hr’g Tr. 741).\\n\\n Ingredion’s contention that the manager’s statements were\\nnon-threatening, see Pet’r’s Br. 44, misunderstands the nature\\nof its violation. The Board did not find that the statements were\\nthreatening, but rather that they were misleading. See Decision\\nat 1 n.1. The record evidence supports the Board’s finding that\\nIngredion violated Section 8(a)(1) by misrepresenting the\\nUnion’s position in a way that tended to cause employees to\\nlose faith in the Union.\\n\\n 3. Impasse. The Board found that Ingredion violated\\nSection 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by unilaterally implementing\\nnew terms and conditions of employment when “the parties had\\nnot reached an overall impasse in bargaining.” Id. at 1.\\nIngredion contends that it bargained with the Union to a valid\\nimpasse over a single issue, namely the format of the new\\nCBA. See Pet’r’s Br. 20–22. Here, Ingredion simply ignores\\nrecord evidence to the contrary.\\n\\n It is well established that “an employer commits an unfair\\nlabor practice if, without bargaining to impasse, it effects a\\nunilateral change of an existing term or condition of\\nemployment.” Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S.\\n190, 198 (1991); see, e.g., Wayneview Care Ctr. v. NLRB, 664\\n\\f 10\\n\\nF.3d 341, 347 (D.C. Cir. 2011). An impasse occurs “when\\n‘good faith negotiations have exhausted the prospects of\\nconcluding an agreement.’” Wayneview, 664 F.3d at 347\\n(quoting Taft Broad. Co., 163 NLRB 475, 478 (1967)). A party\\nclaiming impasse based on a single critical issue has the burden\\nof showing “there can be no progress on any aspect of the\\nnegotiations until the impasse relating to the critical issue is\\nresolved.” Id. at 350 (quoting CalMat Co., 331 NLRB 1084,\\n1097 (2000)).\\n\\n The record shows that although the Union’s proposals\\nused the format of the existing CBA and Ingredion’s proposals\\nused a different format, this did not prevent the parties from\\nproceeding to negotiate and reach agreement on some material\\nissues. For example, the Union added to its June 29 proposal\\ncertain provisions initially proposed by Ingredion regarding\\nunion elections, seniority, and paid time off. Compare Union\\nProposal of June 29, art. II, §§ 2, 4; art. V, § 1; art. VIII, § 3,\\nwith Ingredion Proposal of June 1, art. III, §§ 1, 3; art. V, § 1;\\nart. XIV, § 4. Similarly, Ingredion added to its July 28 and 29\\nproposals certain elements of the existing CBA that the Union\\nwanted to retain. Compare Ingredion Proposal of July 28, art.\\nXX, § 3, and Ingredion Proposal of July 29, art. XI, §§ 5–6,\\nwith CBA art. IV, §§ 11–12; art. X, § 1(g). In addition, the\\nparties created and exchanged summaries that compared the\\nsubstantive terms of their proposals despite the differences in\\nformat. Moreover, at the time Ingredion declared impasse,\\nmajor economic issues had received little attention from the\\nparties: Ingredion had made only a single wage proposal, the\\nUnion had not made “any specific proposal regarding wages,”\\nand there had “been relatively little discussion regarding other\\nimportant economic issues such as health insurance and\\nretirement benefits.” ALJ Decision at 48. For that reason, the\\nBoard concluded that “further discussion of the substantive\\nterms may well have resulted in the parties compromising with\\n\\f 11\\n\\nrespect to the format and language of a new agreement.” Id. A\\nreview of the record as a whole, then, shows substantial\\nevidence to support the Board’s finding that although the\\nformat of the new contract was a “major issue[],” id., it did not\\ncreate an overall impasse, see Decision at 1 (adopting ALJ\\nDecision at 47–49).\\n\\n 4. Delay in providing requested information. Ingredion\\npromptly responded to most of the Union’s requests for\\ninformation but took eleven weeks to provide three items of\\npension-related information. The Board found that this delay\\nwas unreasonable and therefore violated Section 8(a)(1) and\\n(5). See id. at 1 n.1. Ingredion maintains that it “made a\\n‘reasonable good-faith effort’” to produce the items “‘as\\npromptly as circumstances allow[ed].’” Pet’r’s Br. 48\\n(alteration in original) (quoting Good Life Beverage Co., 312\\nNLRB 1060, 1062 n.9 (1993)).\\n\\n “The duty to bargain collectively” imposed by Section\\n8(a)(5) “includes a duty to provide relevant information needed\\nby a labor union for the proper performance of its duties as the\\nemployees’ bargaining representative.” Detroit Edison Co. v.\\nNLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979). “An employer violates the\\nAct not only by refusing to provide such relevant information\\nbut also by not providing it in a timely manner.” Brewers &\\nMaltsters, Local Union No. 6 v. NLRB, 414 F.3d 36, 45 (D.C.\\nCir. 2005). Under Board precedent, an unjustified delay of\\nseven weeks may constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and\\n(5). See, e.g., Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 737 (2000);\\nBundy Corp., 292 NLRB 671, 672 (1989).\\n\\n The record shows that Ingredion’s contemporaneous\\nexplanation for the delay differs from the explanation it\\npresented to the court. Meadows did not tell the Union that the\\ninformation would be difficult or time-consuming to retrieve,\\n\\f 12\\n\\nsee Pet’r’s Br. 48, 50, but rather that Ingredion might not\\nprovide pension-related information because it intended to\\ndiscontinue the existing pension plan. See ALJ Decision at 12.\\nThis was not a valid reason for delaying compliance with an\\ninformation request; regardless of what Ingredion intended, it\\nhad an obligation to provide the information in a timely manner\\nbecause it was relevant to the Union’s proposals. See Country\\nFord Trucks, Inc. v. NLRB, 229 F.3d 1184, 1191 (D.C. Cir.\\n2000). Given Ingredion’s inadequate and changing\\nexplanation for the delay, the Board was entitled to conclude\\nthat the delay was unreasonable. See Decision at 1 n.1\\n(adopting ALJ Decision at 36–37).\\n\\n 5. Threats of job loss. The Board found that Ingredion\\nviolated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when one of its managers\\ntold employees discussing a potential strike, “You boys, you\\nmight want to think long and hard about walking out on these\\npeople. They’ve got the deep pockets and lots of plants that\\nmake the same thing you do. You may not get back in the door\\nif you go out.” ALJ Decision at 32 (quoting Hr’g Tr. 38 (Apr.\\n18, 2016)). Ingredion characterizes this as “a truthful statement\\nthat one potential consequence of a strike is job loss.” Pet’r’s\\nBr. 47.\\n\\n Although an employer may communicate “what [it]\\nreasonably believes will be the likely economic consequences”\\nof a labor strike, Gissel Packing, 395 U.S. at 619, it violates\\nSection 8(a)(1) if it makes “coercive statements that threaten\\nemployees with job loss or plant closure in retaliation for\\nprotected union activities,” Care One at Madison Ave., LLC v.\\nNLRB, 832 F.3d 351, 360 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting\\nProgressive Elec., Inc. v. NLRB, 453 F.3d 538, 544 (D.C. Cir.\\n2006)).\\n\\f 13\\n\\n The Board reasonably found that the statement was not an\\n“honest forecast[]” based on “economic realities,” Gissel\\nPacking, 395 U.S. at 619–20, but a threat to terminate\\nemployees for exercising their right to strike. See Care One,\\n832 F.3d at 360–61. Further, Ingredion’s view that the Board\\nlacked jurisdiction over the relevant allegation in the General\\nCounsel’s complaint because it “was not ‘closely related’ to the\\nclaims in the [Union’s] first amended charge,” Pet’r’s Br. 45\\n(quoting Precision Concrete v. NLRB, 334 F.3d 88, 91–92\\n(D.C. Cir. 2003)), is meritless. The complaint alleged that in\\nJuly 2015, the manager “threatened employees that they would\\nnever return to work if they went on strike,” Second Am. to\\nCompl. 2. This is closely related to the Union’s charge that\\n“[s]ince about April 6, 2015, [Ingredion] threaten[ed]\\nemployees with replacement if they d[id] not agree to” its\\nproposals, First Am. Charge. See G.W. Galloway Co. v. NLRB,\\n856 F.2d 275, 280 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Further, in suggesting the\\nBoard did not address this allegation, see Pet’r’s Br. 45,\\nIngredion overlooks that the Board affirmed the ALJ’s findings\\nexcept as specified otherwise, never disavowed the ALJ’s\\nfinding that the statement was an unlawful threat, and ordered\\nIngredion to stop “[t]hreatening employees that they might lose\\ntheir jobs if they went on strike,” Order at 2; see Decision at 1\\n& nn.1–2.\\n\\n To the extent Ingredion’s challenge morphs into a due\\nprocess objection, this too fails. Ingredion maintains it did not\\nhave a meaningful opportunity to respond to the unlawful-\\nthreats allegation because it was added to the complaint just\\ntwo days before the administrative hearing. See Pet’r’s Br. 51–\\n52. Yet the record shows Ingredion received a “full and fair\\nopportunity to litigate the matter,” and in any event Ingredion\\npoints to no prejudice. See Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. NLRB,\\n2 F.3d 1162, 1169 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Thus, Ingredion has\\n\\f 14\\n\\nshown no basis for reversing the Board’s findings of unfair\\nlabor practices.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Ingredion objects to the Board’s remedial Order on two\\ngrounds. First, it maintains it was denied due process by the\\nprovision rescinding all discipline imposed pursuant to\\nunilaterally implemented terms and conditions because the\\ncomplaint did not specifically request such a remedy. See\\nPet’r’s Br. 53–54. This is meritless. Ingredion was on notice\\nthat the remedy was in play because the complaint asked the\\nBoard to compensate employees “for any losses they have\\nsuffered as a result of the unilateral implementation” of new\\nterms and conditions. Compl. 8.\\n\\n Second, Ingredion objects to the provision directing that\\nMeadows read a notice describing Ingredion’s legal obligations\\nto assembled employees “or permit a Board agent, in the\\npresence of Meadows and other corporate officials responsible\\nfor labor relations, to read the notice to employees,” Order at\\n3. The Board’s broad discretion to fashion remedies for\\nviolations of the Act, see, e.g., Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp.\\nv. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 216–17 (1964), allows it to impose this\\n“extraordinary remedy,” Decision at 1 n.2 (Member Emanuel,\\ndissenting), where “upper management has been directly\\ninvolved in multiple violations of the Act,” Veritas Health\\nServs., Inc. v. NLRB, 895 F.3d 69, 86 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Here,\\nIngredion’s chief negotiator played a central role in several\\nviolations of the Act, so the Board did not abuse its discretion\\nby imposing the remedy.\\n\\n Accordingly, we deny the petition for review and grant the\\nBoard’s cross-application for enforcement of its Order.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4418449/\", \"author_raw\": \"Opinion for the court by Circuit Judge ROGERS\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROGERS"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SRINIVASAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"WILKINS"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641196/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner v. INGREDION INCORPORATED, D/B/A Penford Products Co., Respondent Local 100G, Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Intervenor\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-19\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued May 6, 2019 Decided July 19, 2019\n\n No. 18-1155\n\n NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,\n PETITIONER\n\n v.\n\n INGREDION INCORPORATED, D/B/A PENFORD PRODUCTS CO.,\n RESPONDENT\n\nLOCAL 100G, BAKERY, CONFECTIONERY, TOBACCO WORKERS\nAND GRAIN MILLERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC,\n INTERVENOR\n\n\n Consolidated with 18-1244\n\n\n On Petition for Review and Cross-Application\n for Enforcement of an Order of\n the National Labor Relations Board\n\n\n Brian J. Paul argued the cause for petitioner Ingredion\nIncorporated. With him on the briefs were Stuart R. Buttrick,\nRyan J. Funk, Jeffrey P. Justman, and Kyle J. Essley.\n\n Eric Weitz, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board,\nargued the cause for respondent National Labor Relations\n\f 2\n\nBoard. With him on the brief were Peter B. Robb, General\nCounsel, David S. Habenstreit, Assistant General Counsel, and\nUsha Dheenan, Supervisory Attorney.\n\n Before: ROGERS, SRINIVASAN, and WILKINS, Circuit\nJudges.\n\n Opinion for the court by Circuit Judge ROGERS.\n\n ROGERS, Circuit Judge: Ingredion, Inc. petitions for\nreview of the Decision and Order of the National Labor\nRelations Board on the ground that five of the Board’s findings,\nincluding that Ingredion violated the National Labor Relations\nAct (“the Act”) by dealing directly with employees and\ndenigrating a union in the eyes of employees, are unsupported\nby substantial evidence. We conclude that Ingredion fails to\nmeet its burden in this regard. We further conclude that\nIngredion’s contentions that the Board violated its due process\nrights and improperly imposed a notice-reading remedy lack\nmerit. Accordingly, we deny the petition and grant the Board’s\ncross-application for enforcement of its Order.\n\n I.\n\n Ingredion is a multinational corn starch manufacturing\ncompany. In March 2015, it acquired a corn processing plant\nin Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Approximately 165 of the plant’s\nemployees were represented by a local division of the Bakery,\nConfectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers\nInternational Union, AFL-CIO (“the Union”). Ingredion\nrecognized the Union and assumed the existing collective\nbargaining agreement (“CBA”), which was scheduled to expire\non August 1, 2015. On June 1, 2015, Ingredion and the Union\ncommenced negotiations for a new CBA. The Union proposed\nto modify the existing CBA in several ways. Ingredion\n\f 3\n\nproposed to start from scratch with an entirely new CBA in\nboth substance and form. The parties had not reached an\nagreement as of August 18, when Ingredion declared that they\nwere at impasse and presented its “last, best, and final offer.”\nAfter rejecting the Union’s counteroffer of September 10,\nIngredion unilaterally implemented the terms of its final offer\non September 14, 2015. Ten days later, the Union filed charges\nwith the Board alleging that Ingredion had engaged in\nnumerous unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1)\nand (5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), (5). The Board’s\nGeneral Counsel issued a complaint against Ingredion in\nJanuary 2016.\n\n Section 8(a)(1) and Section 8(a)(5) define unfair labor\npractices in overlapping terms. Section 8(a)(1) provides that it\nis “an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with,\nrestrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of” their right to\nbargain collectively. Id. § 158(a)(1). Section 8(a)(5) provides\nthat it is “an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to\nbargain collectively with the representatives of his employees.”\nId. § 158(a)(5). Because a refusal to bargain necessarily\ninterferes with bargaining, “an employer who violates section\n8(a)(5) also, derivatively, violates section 8(a)(1).” Exxon\nChem. Co. v. NLRB, 386 F.3d 1160, 1164 (D.C. Cir. 2004).\n\n An administrative law judge determined, after conducting\nan evidentiary hearing, that Ingredion had committed several\nviolations of Section 8(a). As relevant here, the ALJ found that\nIngredion had violated Section 8(a)(1) by “denigrating the\nUnion” in the eyes of employees and by “threatening\nemployees that they would lose their jobs if they went on\nstrike.” Ingredion, Inc., No. 18-CA-160654, slip op. at 58–59,\n2016 WL 4501993 (NLRB Div. of Judges Aug. 26, 2016)\n(“ALJ Decision”). He further found that Ingredion had violated\nSection 8(a)(5) (and, derivatively, Section 8(a)(1)) by dealing\n\f 4\n\nwith employees directly rather than through the Union, by\nunilaterally implementing new terms and conditions of\nemployment without first reaching an overall impasse in\nbargaining, and by failing to respond in a timely manner to a\nUnion request for information. Id. at 58.\n\n The Board affirmed with respect to all five violations.\nIngredion, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 74, slip op. at 1–2 & nn.1–3\n(May 1, 2018) (“Decision”). It directed Ingredion to cease and\ndesist from its violations of the Act, rescind the unilaterally\nimplemented terms and conditions of employment, and\ncompensate employees for losses incurred as a result of its\nviolations. Id. at 2–3 (“Order”). In addition, the Board ordered\nIngredion to have its chief negotiator, Ken Meadows, read a\nnotice describing these remedies to assembled employees “or\npermit a Board agent, in the presence of Meadows and other\ncorporate officials responsible for labor relations, to read the\nnotice to employees.” Id. at 3. One Board Member dissented\nfrom the latter portion of the Order. See Decision at 1 n.2.\n\n II.\n\n The Board’s factual findings are conclusive “if supported\nby substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.”\n29 U.S.C. § 160(e); see, e.g., Elastic Stop Nut Div. of Harvard\nIndus., Inc. v. NLRB, 921 F.2d 1275, 1279 (D.C. Cir. 1990)\n(citing Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 487–\n88 (1951)). Substantial evidence “means such relevant\nevidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to\nsupport a conclusion.” E.g., Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at\n477 (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229\n(1938)); King Soopers, Inc. v. NLRB, 859 F.3d 23, 29 (D.C.\nCir. 2017). The court, consequently, must affirm the Board’s\nfindings unless “no reasonable factfinder” could find as it did.\nAlden Leeds, Inc. v. NLRB, 812 F.3d 159, 165 (D.C. Cir. 2016)\n\f 5\n\n(quoting Bally’s Park Place, Inc. v. NLRB, 646 F.3d 929, 935\n(D.C. Cir. 2011)). The court’s assessment of the Board’s\ndecision occurs in light of Congress’s broad delegation to the\nBoard to carry out the Act, see, e.g., NLRB v. Curtin Matheson\nSci., Inc., 494 U.S. 775, 786 (1990); Allied Mech. Servs., Inc.\nv. NLRB, 668 F.3d 758, 764–65 (D.C. Cir. 2012), and\nrecognition that matters involving the interpretation of\nincidents between management and labor will often turn on the\nBoard’s assessment of events in light of its expertise in the area\nof labor relations, see, e.g., Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB,\n324 U.S. 793, 800 (1945); United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. NLRB,\n387 F.3d 908, 913 (D.C. Cir. 2004).\n\n 1. Direct dealing. The Board found that Ingredion\nengaged in direct dealing with employees when its chief\nnegotiator, Ken Meadows, first visited the plant on April 6,\n2015. Decision at 1 n.1. Ingredion acknowledges that\nMeadows spoke to at least five employees during that visit but\nmaintains that his “impromptu conversations” with them were\ntoo “brief and general” to constitute direct dealing. See Pet’r’s\nBr. 38–41.\n\n Section 9(a) of the Act obligates an employer to treat union\nofficials as “the exclusive representatives of [its] employees.”\n29 U.S.C. § 159(a). The Supreme Court has held that this\nobligation includes “the negative duty to treat with no other.”\nMedo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 678, 683–84\n(1944) (quoting NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301\nU.S. 1, 44 (1937)). It is therefore “an infringement of the Act\nfor the employer to disregard the bargaining representative by\nnegotiating with individual employees, whether a majority or a\nminority, with respect to wages, hours and working\nconditions.” Id. at 684.\n\f 6\n\n Under Board precedent, an employer violates Section\n8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act if it “attempt[s] to arm itself for\nupcoming negotiations” by directly “soliciting the sentiment of\nthe employees on a subject to be discussed at the bargaining\ntable.” Harris-Teeter Super Mkts., Inc., 310 NLRB 216, 217\n(1993); see Obie Pac., Inc., 196 NLRB 458, 458–59 (1972).\nFor example, the employer in Harris-Teeter exercised a\ncontractual right to temporarily change its employees’ work\nschedule amid ongoing negotiations with the union and then\nasked the employees if they “liked the change” or had other\ncomments about it. 310 NLRB at 216. The Board held that\nthis solicitation of employee views on a subject of negotiation\nviolated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) because it “usurp[ed] the\n[u]nion’s function.” Id. at 217.\n\n The record shows that less than two months before the start\nof negotiations with the Union over a new collective bargaining\nagreement, Meadows spent approximately 25 minutes\nspeaking with employees about subjects that were to be\naddressed during the negotiations. He criticized the work\nschedules and health insurance benefits provided by the\nexisting CBA and asked what the employees hoped to see in a\nnew agreement. They expressed interest in a wage raise of 3 to\n3.5 percent, an increased pension multiplier, different work\nschedules, more vacation days, and health insurance coverage\nfor early retirees. Meadows told the employees that any wage\nincrease would be “in the range of 2 to 2.5 percent,” that the\nhealth insurance policy would be changed, and that the pension\nmultiplier would not be increased because “pensions were a\nthing of the past and ‘would probably be going away.’” ALJ\nDecision at 7, 37–38 (quoting Hr’g Tr. 61 (Apr. 18, 2016)).\nEmployees who had worked at the plant and been represented\nby the Union for decades testified that they had never had a\nmanager or supervisor approach them to discuss contract\nnegotiations prior to Ingredion’s takeover of the plant.\n\f 7\n\n\n Ingredion does not dispute that Meadows had direct\ncontact with employees and solicited their views about key\nterms in soon-to-be-commenced bargaining with the Union.\nWhether such contact is too brief or informal to constitute a\nviolation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) is the type of on-the-ground\nassessment that “implicates [the Board’s] expertise in labor\nrelations,” United Servs., 387 F.3d at 913 (alteration in\noriginal) (quoting NLRB v. City Disposal Sys., Inc., 465 U.S.\n822, 829 (1984)). Ingredion points to nothing in the record\nconsidered as a whole that would cause the court to doubt the\nreasonableness of the Board’s finding. The Board’s finding\nrests on substantial evidence that Meadows’ conduct\n“undermine[d] the exclusive agency relationship” between the\nUnion and its members, Obie Pac., 196 NLRB at 459,\nillustrating one of the ills Congress sought to guard against by\nenacting Sections 8(a) and 9(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a),\n159(a).\n\n 2. Denigration of the Union. The Board found that one\nof Ingredion’s managers unlawfully denigrated the Union in\nthe eyes of employees by falsely representing that it was\nunwilling to negotiate on certain subjects. See Decision at 1\nn.1. Ingredion contends that the manager did not violate the\nAct because he made only “a non-actionable statement of\nopinion, not a ‘threat of reprisal or force or promise of\nbenefit.’” Pet’r’s Br. 44 (quoting NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co.,\n395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969)).\n\n Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it unlawful for an\nemployer to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees”\nwith respect to collective bargaining. 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).\nSection 8(c), however, permits an employer to express a\n“view[], argument, or opinion” about bargaining so long as it\ndoes not threaten or coerce the employees. Id. § 158(c). In\n\f 8\n\nGissel Packing, 395 U.S. at 620, the Supreme Court\ndistinguished the statements of opinion protected under Section\n8(c) from “coercive . . . overstatements” that an employer “has\nreason to believe will mislead his employees.”\n\n The Board has held that an employer violates Section\n8(a)(1) by “misrepresent[ing] the [u]nion’s bargaining\npositions” in a way that “tends to undermine” employee\nsupport for the union. Miller Waste Mills, Inc., 334 NLRB 466,\n467–68 (2001), enforced, 315 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2003); see\nFaro Screen Process, Inc., 362 NLRB 718, 718–19 (2015). In\nMiller Waste Mills, for example, the employer sent employees\na letter that “blamed the [u]nion for preventing the employees\nfrom receiving their customary annual wage increase,” 334\nNLRB at 467, even though the employer “believed that the\n[u]nion had given its blessing to a wage increase,” id. at 479.\nThe Board ruled that the letter violated Section 8(a)(1) because\nit caused the employees to lose faith in their union\nrepresentatives and thus interfered with their ability to bargain\ncollectively. Id. at 467.\n\n The record shows that Ingredion’s manager told an\nemployee in early July not to sign his retirement papers because\n“there was a better contract coming” and he “would like the\nretirement that [Ingredion] was going to propose.” ALJ\nDecision at 30. The manager also told the employee not to “let\na few people in the union body sway what [he] want[ed] to do.”\nId. (quoting Hr’g Tr. 727 (Apr. 21, 2016)). The manager\nclaimed that Ingredion’s chief labor negotiator, Meadows, had\ngiven him permission to discuss the topic with employees. Id.\n\n The record further shows that shortly after speaking with\nthe first employee, this manager approached another employee\nwho was considering retirement and told him to contact his\nunion representatives and “have them get a hold of the\n\f 9\n\ncompany and start negotiating.” Id. (quoting Hr’g Tr. 740 (Apr.\n21, 2016)). In fact, the parties had already held three\nbargaining sessions and had scheduled additional sessions for\nthe entire week of July 27. Id. at 11–13. The manager told this\nsecond employee the “pension is negotiable, the hours, wages\nare negotiable, everything is negotiable.” Id. at 30 (quoting\nHr’g Tr. 740). The second employee testified that after\nconferring with the first employee, he concluded that Ingredion\nhad “‘a lot to give’” them, that “the Union was not telling\n[them] everything,” and that the parties “needed to get together\nand negotiate.” Id. at 31 (quoting Hr’g Tr. 741).\n\n Ingredion’s contention that the manager’s statements were\nnon-threatening, see Pet’r’s Br. 44, misunderstands the nature\nof its violation. The Board did not find that the statements were\nthreatening, but rather that they were misleading. See Decision\nat 1 n.1. The record evidence supports the Board’s finding that\nIngredion violated Section 8(a)(1) by misrepresenting the\nUnion’s position in a way that tended to cause employees to\nlose faith in the Union.\n\n 3. Impasse. The Board found that Ingredion violated\nSection 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by unilaterally implementing\nnew terms and conditions of employment when “the parties had\nnot reached an overall impasse in bargaining.” Id. at 1.\nIngredion contends that it bargained with the Union to a valid\nimpasse over a single issue, namely the format of the new\nCBA. See Pet’r’s Br. 20–22. Here, Ingredion simply ignores\nrecord evidence to the contrary.\n\n It is well established that “an employer commits an unfair\nlabor practice if, without bargaining to impasse, it effects a\nunilateral change of an existing term or condition of\nemployment.” Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S.\n190, 198 (1991); see, e.g., Wayneview Care Ctr. v. NLRB, 664\n\f 10\n\nF.3d 341, 347 (D.C. Cir. 2011). An impasse occurs “when\n‘good faith negotiations have exhausted the prospects of\nconcluding an agreement.’” Wayneview, 664 F.3d at 347\n(quoting Taft Broad. Co., 163 NLRB 475, 478 (1967)). A party\nclaiming impasse based on a single critical issue has the burden\nof showing “there can be no progress on any aspect of the\nnegotiations until the impasse relating to the critical issue is\nresolved.” Id. at 350 (quoting CalMat Co., 331 NLRB 1084,\n1097 (2000)).\n\n The record shows that although the Union’s proposals\nused the format of the existing CBA and Ingredion’s proposals\nused a different format, this did not prevent the parties from\nproceeding to negotiate and reach agreement on some material\nissues. For example, the Union added to its June 29 proposal\ncertain provisions initially proposed by Ingredion regarding\nunion elections, seniority, and paid time off. Compare Union\nProposal of June 29, art. II, §§ 2, 4; art. V, § 1; art. VIII, § 3,\nwith Ingredion Proposal of June 1, art. III, §§ 1, 3; art. V, § 1;\nart. XIV, § 4. Similarly, Ingredion added to its July 28 and 29\nproposals certain elements of the existing CBA that the Union\nwanted to retain. Compare Ingredion Proposal of July 28, art.\nXX, § 3, and Ingredion Proposal of July 29, art. XI, §§ 5–6,\nwith CBA art. IV, §§ 11–12; art. X, § 1(g). In addition, the\nparties created and exchanged summaries that compared the\nsubstantive terms of their proposals despite the differences in\nformat. Moreover, at the time Ingredion declared impasse,\nmajor economic issues had received little attention from the\nparties: Ingredion had made only a single wage proposal, the\nUnion had not made “any specific proposal regarding wages,”\nand there had “been relatively little discussion regarding other\nimportant economic issues such as health insurance and\nretirement benefits.” ALJ Decision at 48. For that reason, the\nBoard concluded that “further discussion of the substantive\nterms may well have resulted in the parties compromising with\n\f 11\n\nrespect to the format and language of a new agreement.” Id. A\nreview of the record as a whole, then, shows substantial\nevidence to support the Board’s finding that although the\nformat of the new contract was a “major issue[],” id., it did not\ncreate an overall impasse, see Decision at 1 (adopting ALJ\nDecision at 47–49).\n\n 4. Delay in providing requested information. Ingredion\npromptly responded to most of the Union’s requests for\ninformation but took eleven weeks to provide three items of\npension-related information. The Board found that this delay\nwas unreasonable and therefore violated Section 8(a)(1) and\n(5). See id. at 1 n.1. Ingredion maintains that it “made a\n‘reasonable good-faith effort’” to produce the items “‘as\npromptly as circumstances allow[ed].’” Pet’r’s Br. 48\n(alteration in original) (quoting Good Life Beverage Co., 312\nNLRB 1060, 1062 n.9 (1993)).\n\n “The duty to bargain collectively” imposed by Section\n8(a)(5) “includes a duty to provide relevant information needed\nby a labor union for the proper performance of its duties as the\nemployees’ bargaining representative.” Detroit Edison Co. v.\nNLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979). “An employer violates the\nAct not only by refusing to provide such relevant information\nbut also by not providing it in a timely manner.” Brewers &\nMaltsters, Local Union No. 6 v. NLRB, 414 F.3d 36, 45 (D.C.\nCir. 2005). Under Board precedent, an unjustified delay of\nseven weeks may constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and\n(5). See, e.g., Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 737 (2000);\nBundy Corp., 292 NLRB 671, 672 (1989).\n\n The record shows that Ingredion’s contemporaneous\nexplanation for the delay differs from the explanation it\npresented to the court. Meadows did not tell the Union that the\ninformation would be difficult or time-consuming to retrieve,\n\f 12\n\nsee Pet’r’s Br. 48, 50, but rather that Ingredion might not\nprovide pension-related information because it intended to\ndiscontinue the existing pension plan. See ALJ Decision at 12.\nThis was not a valid reason for delaying compliance with an\ninformation request; regardless of what Ingredion intended, it\nhad an obligation to provide the information in a timely manner\nbecause it was relevant to the Union’s proposals. See Country\nFord Trucks, Inc. v. NLRB, 229 F.3d 1184, 1191 (D.C. Cir.\n2000). Given Ingredion’s inadequate and changing\nexplanation for the delay, the Board was entitled to conclude\nthat the delay was unreasonable. See Decision at 1 n.1\n(adopting ALJ Decision at 36–37).\n\n 5. Threats of job loss. The Board found that Ingredion\nviolated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when one of its managers\ntold employees discussing a potential strike, “You boys, you\nmight want to think long and hard about walking out on these\npeople. They’ve got the deep pockets and lots of plants that\nmake the same thing you do. You may not get back in the door\nif you go out.” ALJ Decision at 32 (quoting Hr’g Tr. 38 (Apr.\n18, 2016)). Ingredion characterizes this as “a truthful statement\nthat one potential consequence of a strike is job loss.” Pet’r’s\nBr. 47.\n\n Although an employer may communicate “what [it]\nreasonably believes will be the likely economic consequences”\nof a labor strike, Gissel Packing, 395 U.S. at 619, it violates\nSection 8(a)(1) if it makes “coercive statements that threaten\nemployees with job loss or plant closure in retaliation for\nprotected union activities,” Care One at Madison Ave., LLC v.\nNLRB, 832 F.3d 351, 360 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting\nProgressive Elec., Inc. v. NLRB, 453 F.3d 538, 544 (D.C. Cir.\n2006)).\n\f 13\n\n The Board reasonably found that the statement was not an\n“honest forecast[]” based on “economic realities,” Gissel\nPacking, 395 U.S. at 619–20, but a threat to terminate\nemployees for exercising their right to strike. See Care One,\n832 F.3d at 360–61. Further, Ingredion’s view that the Board\nlacked jurisdiction over the relevant allegation in the General\nCounsel’s complaint because it “was not ‘closely related’ to the\nclaims in the [Union’s] first amended charge,” Pet’r’s Br. 45\n(quoting Precision Concrete v. NLRB, 334 F.3d 88, 91–92\n(D.C. Cir. 2003)), is meritless. The complaint alleged that in\nJuly 2015, the manager “threatened employees that they would\nnever return to work if they went on strike,” Second Am. to\nCompl. 2. This is closely related to the Union’s charge that\n“[s]ince about April 6, 2015, [Ingredion] threaten[ed]\nemployees with replacement if they d[id] not agree to” its\nproposals, First Am. Charge. See G.W. Galloway Co. v. NLRB,\n856 F.2d 275, 280 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Further, in suggesting the\nBoard did not address this allegation, see Pet’r’s Br. 45,\nIngredion overlooks that the Board affirmed the ALJ’s findings\nexcept as specified otherwise, never disavowed the ALJ’s\nfinding that the statement was an unlawful threat, and ordered\nIngredion to stop “[t]hreatening employees that they might lose\ntheir jobs if they went on strike,” Order at 2; see Decision at 1\n& nn.1–2.\n\n To the extent Ingredion’s challenge morphs into a due\nprocess objection, this too fails. Ingredion maintains it did not\nhave a meaningful opportunity to respond to the unlawful-\nthreats allegation because it was added to the complaint just\ntwo days before the administrative hearing. See Pet’r’s Br. 51–\n52. Yet the record shows Ingredion received a “full and fair\nopportunity to litigate the matter,” and in any event Ingredion\npoints to no prejudice. See Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. NLRB,\n2 F.3d 1162, 1169 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Thus, Ingredion has\n\f 14\n\nshown no basis for reversing the Board’s findings of unfair\nlabor practices.\n\n III.\n\n Ingredion objects to the Board’s remedial Order on two\ngrounds. First, it maintains it was denied due process by the\nprovision rescinding all discipline imposed pursuant to\nunilaterally implemented terms and conditions because the\ncomplaint did not specifically request such a remedy. See\nPet’r’s Br. 53–54. This is meritless. Ingredion was on notice\nthat the remedy was in play because the complaint asked the\nBoard to compensate employees “for any losses they have\nsuffered as a result of the unilateral implementation” of new\nterms and conditions. Compl. 8.\n\n Second, Ingredion objects to the provision directing that\nMeadows read a notice describing Ingredion’s legal obligations\nto assembled employees “or permit a Board agent, in the\npresence of Meadows and other corporate officials responsible\nfor labor relations, to read the notice to employees,” Order at\n3. The Board’s broad discretion to fashion remedies for\nviolations of the Act, see, e.g., Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp.\nv. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 216–17 (1964), allows it to impose this\n“extraordinary remedy,” Decision at 1 n.2 (Member Emanuel,\ndissenting), where “upper management has been directly\ninvolved in multiple violations of the Act,” Veritas Health\nServs., Inc. v. NLRB, 895 F.3d 69, 86 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Here,\nIngredion’s chief negotiator played a central role in several\nviolations of the Act, so the Board did not abuse its discretion\nby imposing the remedy.\n\n Accordingly, we deny the petition for review and grant the\nBoard’s cross-application for enforcement of its Order.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner v. INGREDION INCORPORATED, D/B/A Penford Products Co., Respondent Local 100G, Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Intervenor\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-19\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued May 6, 2019 Decided July 19, 2019\\n\\n No. 18-1155\\n\\n NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,\\n PETITIONER\\n\\n v.\\n\\n INGREDION INCORPORATED, D/B/A PENFORD PRODUCTS CO.,\\n RESPONDENT\\n\\nLOCAL 100G, BAKERY, CONFECTIONERY, TOBACCO WORKERS\\nAND GRAIN MILLERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC,\\n INTERVENOR\\n\\n\\n Consolidated with 18-1244\\n\\n\\n On Petition for Review and Cross-Application\\n for Enforcement of an Order of\\n the National Labor Relations Board\\n\\n\\n Brian J. Paul argued the cause for petitioner Ingredion\\nIncorporated. With him on the briefs were Stuart R. Buttrick,\\nRyan J. Funk, Jeffrey P. Justman, and Kyle J. Essley.\\n\\n Eric Weitz, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board,\\nargued the cause for respondent National Labor Relations\\n\\f 2\\n\\nBoard. With him on the brief were Peter B. Robb, General\\nCounsel, David S. Habenstreit, Assistant General Counsel, and\\nUsha Dheenan, Supervisory Attorney.\\n\\n Before: ROGERS, SRINIVASAN, and WILKINS, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n\\n Opinion for the court by Circuit Judge ROGERS.\\n\\n ROGERS, Circuit Judge: Ingredion, Inc. petitions for\\nreview of the Decision and Order of the National Labor\\nRelations Board on the ground that five of the Board’s findings,\\nincluding that Ingredion violated the National Labor Relations\\nAct (“the Act”) by dealing directly with employees and\\ndenigrating a union in the eyes of employees, are unsupported\\nby substantial evidence. We conclude that Ingredion fails to\\nmeet its burden in this regard. We further conclude that\\nIngredion’s contentions that the Board violated its due process\\nrights and improperly imposed a notice-reading remedy lack\\nmerit. Accordingly, we deny the petition and grant the Board’s\\ncross-application for enforcement of its Order.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Ingredion is a multinational corn starch manufacturing\\ncompany. In March 2015, it acquired a corn processing plant\\nin Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Approximately 165 of the plant’s\\nemployees were represented by a local division of the Bakery,\\nConfectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers\\nInternational Union, AFL-CIO (“the Union”). Ingredion\\nrecognized the Union and assumed the existing collective\\nbargaining agreement (“CBA”), which was scheduled to expire\\non August 1, 2015. On June 1, 2015, Ingredion and the Union\\ncommenced negotiations for a new CBA. The Union proposed\\nto modify the existing CBA in several ways. Ingredion\\n\\f 3\\n\\nproposed to start from scratch with an entirely new CBA in\\nboth substance and form. The parties had not reached an\\nagreement as of August 18, when Ingredion declared that they\\nwere at impasse and presented its “last, best, and final offer.”\\nAfter rejecting the Union’s counteroffer of September 10,\\nIngredion unilaterally implemented the terms of its final offer\\non September 14, 2015. Ten days later, the Union filed charges\\nwith the Board alleging that Ingredion had engaged in\\nnumerous unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1)\\nand (5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), (5). The Board’s\\nGeneral Counsel issued a complaint against Ingredion in\\nJanuary 2016.\\n\\n Section 8(a)(1) and Section 8(a)(5) define unfair labor\\npractices in overlapping terms. Section 8(a)(1) provides that it\\nis “an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with,\\nrestrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of” their right to\\nbargain collectively. Id. § 158(a)(1). Section 8(a)(5) provides\\nthat it is “an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to\\nbargain collectively with the representatives of his employees.”\\nId. § 158(a)(5). Because a refusal to bargain necessarily\\ninterferes with bargaining, “an employer who violates section\\n8(a)(5) also, derivatively, violates section 8(a)(1).” Exxon\\nChem. Co. v. NLRB, 386 F.3d 1160, 1164 (D.C. Cir. 2004).\\n\\n An administrative law judge determined, after conducting\\nan evidentiary hearing, that Ingredion had committed several\\nviolations of Section 8(a). As relevant here, the ALJ found that\\nIngredion had violated Section 8(a)(1) by “denigrating the\\nUnion” in the eyes of employees and by “threatening\\nemployees that they would lose their jobs if they went on\\nstrike.” Ingredion, Inc., No. 18-CA-160654, slip op. at 58–59,\\n2016 WL 4501993 (NLRB Div. of Judges Aug. 26, 2016)\\n(“ALJ Decision”). He further found that Ingredion had violated\\nSection 8(a)(5) (and, derivatively, Section 8(a)(1)) by dealing\\n\\f 4\\n\\nwith employees directly rather than through the Union, by\\nunilaterally implementing new terms and conditions of\\nemployment without first reaching an overall impasse in\\nbargaining, and by failing to respond in a timely manner to a\\nUnion request for information. Id. at 58.\\n\\n The Board affirmed with respect to all five violations.\\nIngredion, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 74, slip op. at 1–2 & nn.1–3\\n(May 1, 2018) (“Decision”). It directed Ingredion to cease and\\ndesist from its violations of the Act, rescind the unilaterally\\nimplemented terms and conditions of employment, and\\ncompensate employees for losses incurred as a result of its\\nviolations. Id. at 2–3 (“Order”). In addition, the Board ordered\\nIngredion to have its chief negotiator, Ken Meadows, read a\\nnotice describing these remedies to assembled employees “or\\npermit a Board agent, in the presence of Meadows and other\\ncorporate officials responsible for labor relations, to read the\\nnotice to employees.” Id. at 3. One Board Member dissented\\nfrom the latter portion of the Order. See Decision at 1 n.2.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n The Board’s factual findings are conclusive “if supported\\nby substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.”\\n29 U.S.C. § 160(e); see, e.g., Elastic Stop Nut Div. of Harvard\\nIndus., Inc. v. NLRB, 921 F.2d 1275, 1279 (D.C. Cir. 1990)\\n(citing Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 487–\\n88 (1951)). Substantial evidence “means such relevant\\nevidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to\\nsupport a conclusion.” E.g., Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at\\n477 (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229\\n(1938)); King Soopers, Inc. v. NLRB, 859 F.3d 23, 29 (D.C.\\nCir. 2017). The court, consequently, must affirm the Board’s\\nfindings unless “no reasonable factfinder” could find as it did.\\nAlden Leeds, Inc. v. NLRB, 812 F.3d 159, 165 (D.C. Cir. 2016)\\n\\f 5\\n\\n(quoting Bally’s Park Place, Inc. v. NLRB, 646 F.3d 929, 935\\n(D.C. Cir. 2011)). The court’s assessment of the Board’s\\ndecision occurs in light of Congress’s broad delegation to the\\nBoard to carry out the Act, see, e.g., NLRB v. Curtin Matheson\\nSci., Inc., 494 U.S. 775, 786 (1990); Allied Mech. Servs., Inc.\\nv. NLRB, 668 F.3d 758, 764–65 (D.C. Cir. 2012), and\\nrecognition that matters involving the interpretation of\\nincidents between management and labor will often turn on the\\nBoard’s assessment of events in light of its expertise in the area\\nof labor relations, see, e.g., Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB,\\n324 U.S. 793, 800 (1945); United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. NLRB,\\n387 F.3d 908, 913 (D.C. Cir. 2004).\\n\\n 1. Direct dealing. The Board found that Ingredion\\nengaged in direct dealing with employees when its chief\\nnegotiator, Ken Meadows, first visited the plant on April 6,\\n2015. Decision at 1 n.1. Ingredion acknowledges that\\nMeadows spoke to at least five employees during that visit but\\nmaintains that his “impromptu conversations” with them were\\ntoo “brief and general” to constitute direct dealing. See Pet’r’s\\nBr. 38–41.\\n\\n Section 9(a) of the Act obligates an employer to treat union\\nofficials as “the exclusive representatives of [its] employees.”\\n29 U.S.C. § 159(a). The Supreme Court has held that this\\nobligation includes “the negative duty to treat with no other.”\\nMedo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 678, 683–84\\n(1944) (quoting NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301\\nU.S. 1, 44 (1937)). It is therefore “an infringement of the Act\\nfor the employer to disregard the bargaining representative by\\nnegotiating with individual employees, whether a majority or a\\nminority, with respect to wages, hours and working\\nconditions.” Id. at 684.\\n\\f 6\\n\\n Under Board precedent, an employer violates Section\\n8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act if it “attempt[s] to arm itself for\\nupcoming negotiations” by directly “soliciting the sentiment of\\nthe employees on a subject to be discussed at the bargaining\\ntable.” Harris-Teeter Super Mkts., Inc., 310 NLRB 216, 217\\n(1993); see Obie Pac., Inc., 196 NLRB 458, 458–59 (1972).\\nFor example, the employer in Harris-Teeter exercised a\\ncontractual right to temporarily change its employees’ work\\nschedule amid ongoing negotiations with the union and then\\nasked the employees if they “liked the change” or had other\\ncomments about it. 310 NLRB at 216. The Board held that\\nthis solicitation of employee views on a subject of negotiation\\nviolated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) because it “usurp[ed] the\\n[u]nion’s function.” Id. at 217.\\n\\n The record shows that less than two months before the start\\nof negotiations with the Union over a new collective bargaining\\nagreement, Meadows spent approximately 25 minutes\\nspeaking with employees about subjects that were to be\\naddressed during the negotiations. He criticized the work\\nschedules and health insurance benefits provided by the\\nexisting CBA and asked what the employees hoped to see in a\\nnew agreement. They expressed interest in a wage raise of 3 to\\n3.5 percent, an increased pension multiplier, different work\\nschedules, more vacation days, and health insurance coverage\\nfor early retirees. Meadows told the employees that any wage\\nincrease would be “in the range of 2 to 2.5 percent,” that the\\nhealth insurance policy would be changed, and that the pension\\nmultiplier would not be increased because “pensions were a\\nthing of the past and ‘would probably be going away.’” ALJ\\nDecision at 7, 37–38 (quoting Hr’g Tr. 61 (Apr. 18, 2016)).\\nEmployees who had worked at the plant and been represented\\nby the Union for decades testified that they had never had a\\nmanager or supervisor approach them to discuss contract\\nnegotiations prior to Ingredion’s takeover of the plant.\\n\\f 7\\n\\n\\n Ingredion does not dispute that Meadows had direct\\ncontact with employees and solicited their views about key\\nterms in soon-to-be-commenced bargaining with the Union.\\nWhether such contact is too brief or informal to constitute a\\nviolation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) is the type of on-the-ground\\nassessment that “implicates [the Board’s] expertise in labor\\nrelations,” United Servs., 387 F.3d at 913 (alteration in\\noriginal) (quoting NLRB v. City Disposal Sys., Inc., 465 U.S.\\n822, 829 (1984)). Ingredion points to nothing in the record\\nconsidered as a whole that would cause the court to doubt the\\nreasonableness of the Board’s finding. The Board’s finding\\nrests on substantial evidence that Meadows’ conduct\\n“undermine[d] the exclusive agency relationship” between the\\nUnion and its members, Obie Pac., 196 NLRB at 459,\\nillustrating one of the ills Congress sought to guard against by\\nenacting Sections 8(a) and 9(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a),\\n159(a).\\n\\n 2. Denigration of the Union. The Board found that one\\nof Ingredion’s managers unlawfully denigrated the Union in\\nthe eyes of employees by falsely representing that it was\\nunwilling to negotiate on certain subjects. See Decision at 1\\nn.1. Ingredion contends that the manager did not violate the\\nAct because he made only “a non-actionable statement of\\nopinion, not a ‘threat of reprisal or force or promise of\\nbenefit.’” Pet’r’s Br. 44 (quoting NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co.,\\n395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969)).\\n\\n Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it unlawful for an\\nemployer to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees”\\nwith respect to collective bargaining. 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).\\nSection 8(c), however, permits an employer to express a\\n“view[], argument, or opinion” about bargaining so long as it\\ndoes not threaten or coerce the employees. Id. § 158(c). In\\n\\f 8\\n\\nGissel Packing, 395 U.S. at 620, the Supreme Court\\ndistinguished the statements of opinion protected under Section\\n8(c) from “coercive . . . overstatements” that an employer “has\\nreason to believe will mislead his employees.”\\n\\n The Board has held that an employer violates Section\\n8(a)(1) by “misrepresent[ing] the [u]nion’s bargaining\\npositions” in a way that “tends to undermine” employee\\nsupport for the union. Miller Waste Mills, Inc., 334 NLRB 466,\\n467–68 (2001), enforced, 315 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2003); see\\nFaro Screen Process, Inc., 362 NLRB 718, 718–19 (2015). In\\nMiller Waste Mills, for example, the employer sent employees\\na letter that “blamed the [u]nion for preventing the employees\\nfrom receiving their customary annual wage increase,” 334\\nNLRB at 467, even though the employer “believed that the\\n[u]nion had given its blessing to a wage increase,” id. at 479.\\nThe Board ruled that the letter violated Section 8(a)(1) because\\nit caused the employees to lose faith in their union\\nrepresentatives and thus interfered with their ability to bargain\\ncollectively. Id. at 467.\\n\\n The record shows that Ingredion’s manager told an\\nemployee in early July not to sign his retirement papers because\\n“there was a better contract coming” and he “would like the\\nretirement that [Ingredion] was going to propose.” ALJ\\nDecision at 30. The manager also told the employee not to “let\\na few people in the union body sway what [he] want[ed] to do.”\\nId. (quoting Hr’g Tr. 727 (Apr. 21, 2016)). The manager\\nclaimed that Ingredion’s chief labor negotiator, Meadows, had\\ngiven him permission to discuss the topic with employees. Id.\\n\\n The record further shows that shortly after speaking with\\nthe first employee, this manager approached another employee\\nwho was considering retirement and told him to contact his\\nunion representatives and “have them get a hold of the\\n\\f 9\\n\\ncompany and start negotiating.” Id. (quoting Hr’g Tr. 740 (Apr.\\n21, 2016)). In fact, the parties had already held three\\nbargaining sessions and had scheduled additional sessions for\\nthe entire week of July 27. Id. at 11–13. The manager told this\\nsecond employee the “pension is negotiable, the hours, wages\\nare negotiable, everything is negotiable.” Id. at 30 (quoting\\nHr’g Tr. 740). The second employee testified that after\\nconferring with the first employee, he concluded that Ingredion\\nhad “‘a lot to give’” them, that “the Union was not telling\\n[them] everything,” and that the parties “needed to get together\\nand negotiate.” Id. at 31 (quoting Hr’g Tr. 741).\\n\\n Ingredion’s contention that the manager’s statements were\\nnon-threatening, see Pet’r’s Br. 44, misunderstands the nature\\nof its violation. The Board did not find that the statements were\\nthreatening, but rather that they were misleading. See Decision\\nat 1 n.1. The record evidence supports the Board’s finding that\\nIngredion violated Section 8(a)(1) by misrepresenting the\\nUnion’s position in a way that tended to cause employees to\\nlose faith in the Union.\\n\\n 3. Impasse. The Board found that Ingredion violated\\nSection 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by unilaterally implementing\\nnew terms and conditions of employment when “the parties had\\nnot reached an overall impasse in bargaining.” Id. at 1.\\nIngredion contends that it bargained with the Union to a valid\\nimpasse over a single issue, namely the format of the new\\nCBA. See Pet’r’s Br. 20–22. Here, Ingredion simply ignores\\nrecord evidence to the contrary.\\n\\n It is well established that “an employer commits an unfair\\nlabor practice if, without bargaining to impasse, it effects a\\nunilateral change of an existing term or condition of\\nemployment.” Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S.\\n190, 198 (1991); see, e.g., Wayneview Care Ctr. v. NLRB, 664\\n\\f 10\\n\\nF.3d 341, 347 (D.C. Cir. 2011). An impasse occurs “when\\n‘good faith negotiations have exhausted the prospects of\\nconcluding an agreement.’” Wayneview, 664 F.3d at 347\\n(quoting Taft Broad. Co., 163 NLRB 475, 478 (1967)). A party\\nclaiming impasse based on a single critical issue has the burden\\nof showing “there can be no progress on any aspect of the\\nnegotiations until the impasse relating to the critical issue is\\nresolved.” Id. at 350 (quoting CalMat Co., 331 NLRB 1084,\\n1097 (2000)).\\n\\n The record shows that although the Union’s proposals\\nused the format of the existing CBA and Ingredion’s proposals\\nused a different format, this did not prevent the parties from\\nproceeding to negotiate and reach agreement on some material\\nissues. For example, the Union added to its June 29 proposal\\ncertain provisions initially proposed by Ingredion regarding\\nunion elections, seniority, and paid time off. Compare Union\\nProposal of June 29, art. II, §§ 2, 4; art. V, § 1; art. VIII, § 3,\\nwith Ingredion Proposal of June 1, art. III, §§ 1, 3; art. V, § 1;\\nart. XIV, § 4. Similarly, Ingredion added to its July 28 and 29\\nproposals certain elements of the existing CBA that the Union\\nwanted to retain. Compare Ingredion Proposal of July 28, art.\\nXX, § 3, and Ingredion Proposal of July 29, art. XI, §§ 5–6,\\nwith CBA art. IV, §§ 11–12; art. X, § 1(g). In addition, the\\nparties created and exchanged summaries that compared the\\nsubstantive terms of their proposals despite the differences in\\nformat. Moreover, at the time Ingredion declared impasse,\\nmajor economic issues had received little attention from the\\nparties: Ingredion had made only a single wage proposal, the\\nUnion had not made “any specific proposal regarding wages,”\\nand there had “been relatively little discussion regarding other\\nimportant economic issues such as health insurance and\\nretirement benefits.” ALJ Decision at 48. For that reason, the\\nBoard concluded that “further discussion of the substantive\\nterms may well have resulted in the parties compromising with\\n\\f 11\\n\\nrespect to the format and language of a new agreement.” Id. A\\nreview of the record as a whole, then, shows substantial\\nevidence to support the Board’s finding that although the\\nformat of the new contract was a “major issue[],” id., it did not\\ncreate an overall impasse, see Decision at 1 (adopting ALJ\\nDecision at 47–49).\\n\\n 4. Delay in providing requested information. Ingredion\\npromptly responded to most of the Union’s requests for\\ninformation but took eleven weeks to provide three items of\\npension-related information. The Board found that this delay\\nwas unreasonable and therefore violated Section 8(a)(1) and\\n(5). See id. at 1 n.1. Ingredion maintains that it “made a\\n‘reasonable good-faith effort’” to produce the items “‘as\\npromptly as circumstances allow[ed].’” Pet’r’s Br. 48\\n(alteration in original) (quoting Good Life Beverage Co., 312\\nNLRB 1060, 1062 n.9 (1993)).\\n\\n “The duty to bargain collectively” imposed by Section\\n8(a)(5) “includes a duty to provide relevant information needed\\nby a labor union for the proper performance of its duties as the\\nemployees’ bargaining representative.” Detroit Edison Co. v.\\nNLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979). “An employer violates the\\nAct not only by refusing to provide such relevant information\\nbut also by not providing it in a timely manner.” Brewers &\\nMaltsters, Local Union No. 6 v. NLRB, 414 F.3d 36, 45 (D.C.\\nCir. 2005). Under Board precedent, an unjustified delay of\\nseven weeks may constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and\\n(5). See, e.g., Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 737 (2000);\\nBundy Corp., 292 NLRB 671, 672 (1989).\\n\\n The record shows that Ingredion’s contemporaneous\\nexplanation for the delay differs from the explanation it\\npresented to the court. Meadows did not tell the Union that the\\ninformation would be difficult or time-consuming to retrieve,\\n\\f 12\\n\\nsee Pet’r’s Br. 48, 50, but rather that Ingredion might not\\nprovide pension-related information because it intended to\\ndiscontinue the existing pension plan. See ALJ Decision at 12.\\nThis was not a valid reason for delaying compliance with an\\ninformation request; regardless of what Ingredion intended, it\\nhad an obligation to provide the information in a timely manner\\nbecause it was relevant to the Union’s proposals. See Country\\nFord Trucks, Inc. v. NLRB, 229 F.3d 1184, 1191 (D.C. Cir.\\n2000). Given Ingredion’s inadequate and changing\\nexplanation for the delay, the Board was entitled to conclude\\nthat the delay was unreasonable. See Decision at 1 n.1\\n(adopting ALJ Decision at 36–37).\\n\\n 5. Threats of job loss. The Board found that Ingredion\\nviolated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when one of its managers\\ntold employees discussing a potential strike, “You boys, you\\nmight want to think long and hard about walking out on these\\npeople. They’ve got the deep pockets and lots of plants that\\nmake the same thing you do. You may not get back in the door\\nif you go out.” ALJ Decision at 32 (quoting Hr’g Tr. 38 (Apr.\\n18, 2016)). Ingredion characterizes this as “a truthful statement\\nthat one potential consequence of a strike is job loss.” Pet’r’s\\nBr. 47.\\n\\n Although an employer may communicate “what [it]\\nreasonably believes will be the likely economic consequences”\\nof a labor strike, Gissel Packing, 395 U.S. at 619, it violates\\nSection 8(a)(1) if it makes “coercive statements that threaten\\nemployees with job loss or plant closure in retaliation for\\nprotected union activities,” Care One at Madison Ave., LLC v.\\nNLRB, 832 F.3d 351, 360 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting\\nProgressive Elec., Inc. v. NLRB, 453 F.3d 538, 544 (D.C. Cir.\\n2006)).\\n\\f 13\\n\\n The Board reasonably found that the statement was not an\\n“honest forecast[]” based on “economic realities,” Gissel\\nPacking, 395 U.S. at 619–20, but a threat to terminate\\nemployees for exercising their right to strike. See Care One,\\n832 F.3d at 360–61. Further, Ingredion’s view that the Board\\nlacked jurisdiction over the relevant allegation in the General\\nCounsel’s complaint because it “was not ‘closely related’ to the\\nclaims in the [Union’s] first amended charge,” Pet’r’s Br. 45\\n(quoting Precision Concrete v. NLRB, 334 F.3d 88, 91–92\\n(D.C. Cir. 2003)), is meritless. The complaint alleged that in\\nJuly 2015, the manager “threatened employees that they would\\nnever return to work if they went on strike,” Second Am. to\\nCompl. 2. This is closely related to the Union’s charge that\\n“[s]ince about April 6, 2015, [Ingredion] threaten[ed]\\nemployees with replacement if they d[id] not agree to” its\\nproposals, First Am. Charge. See G.W. Galloway Co. v. NLRB,\\n856 F.2d 275, 280 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Further, in suggesting the\\nBoard did not address this allegation, see Pet’r’s Br. 45,\\nIngredion overlooks that the Board affirmed the ALJ’s findings\\nexcept as specified otherwise, never disavowed the ALJ’s\\nfinding that the statement was an unlawful threat, and ordered\\nIngredion to stop “[t]hreatening employees that they might lose\\ntheir jobs if they went on strike,” Order at 2; see Decision at 1\\n& nn.1–2.\\n\\n To the extent Ingredion’s challenge morphs into a due\\nprocess objection, this too fails. Ingredion maintains it did not\\nhave a meaningful opportunity to respond to the unlawful-\\nthreats allegation because it was added to the complaint just\\ntwo days before the administrative hearing. See Pet’r’s Br. 51–\\n52. Yet the record shows Ingredion received a “full and fair\\nopportunity to litigate the matter,” and in any event Ingredion\\npoints to no prejudice. See Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. NLRB,\\n2 F.3d 1162, 1169 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Thus, Ingredion has\\n\\f 14\\n\\nshown no basis for reversing the Board’s findings of unfair\\nlabor practices.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Ingredion objects to the Board’s remedial Order on two\\ngrounds. First, it maintains it was denied due process by the\\nprovision rescinding all discipline imposed pursuant to\\nunilaterally implemented terms and conditions because the\\ncomplaint did not specifically request such a remedy. See\\nPet’r’s Br. 53–54. This is meritless. Ingredion was on notice\\nthat the remedy was in play because the complaint asked the\\nBoard to compensate employees “for any losses they have\\nsuffered as a result of the unilateral implementation” of new\\nterms and conditions. Compl. 8.\\n\\n Second, Ingredion objects to the provision directing that\\nMeadows read a notice describing Ingredion’s legal obligations\\nto assembled employees “or permit a Board agent, in the\\npresence of Meadows and other corporate officials responsible\\nfor labor relations, to read the notice to employees,” Order at\\n3. The Board’s broad discretion to fashion remedies for\\nviolations of the Act, see, e.g., Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp.\\nv. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 216–17 (1964), allows it to impose this\\n“extraordinary remedy,” Decision at 1 n.2 (Member Emanuel,\\ndissenting), where “upper management has been directly\\ninvolved in multiple violations of the Act,” Veritas Health\\nServs., Inc. v. NLRB, 895 F.3d 69, 86 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Here,\\nIngredion’s chief negotiator played a central role in several\\nviolations of the Act, so the Board did not abuse its discretion\\nby imposing the remedy.\\n\\n Accordingly, we deny the petition for review and grant the\\nBoard’s cross-application for enforcement of its Order.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3464,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4641197,"string":"4,641,197"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE, Et Al., Petitioners v. Andrew WHEELER, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents Albemarle Corporation, Et Al., Intervenors"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Idaho Conservation League v. Andrew Wheeler"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-19"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1141"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Henderson, Griffith, Sentelle\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued March 13, 2019 Decided July 19, 2019\\n\\n No. 18-1141\\n\\n IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE, ET AL.,\\n PETITIONERS\\n\\n v.\\n\\n ANDREW WHEELER, ADMINISTRATOR,\\n U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND\\n ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,\\n RESPONDENTS\\n\\n ALBEMARLE CORPORATION, ET AL.,\\n INTERVENORS\\n\\n\\n On Petition for Review of Final Action by\\n the United States Environmental Protection Agency\\n\\n\\n Amanda W. Goodin argued the cause for the petitioners.\\nJan E. Hasselman and Jaimini Parekh were with her on brief.\\nPatti A. Goldman entered an appearance.\\n\\n Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Assistant Attorney General, United\\nStates Department of Justice, argued the cause for the\\nrespondents. Jonathan Brightbill, Deputy Assistant Attorney\\nGeneral, and John E. Sullivan, Attorney, were with him on\\nbrief.\\n\\f 2\\n Brian T. Burgess argued the cause for the Industry\\nIntervenors. Michael S. Giannotto, Andrew Kim, Kevin P.\\nMartin, Keith Bradley, Carolyn L. McIntosh, Kevin A. Gaynor,\\nJeremy C. Marwell, Joshua S. Johnson, George A. Tsiolis,\\nChris S. Leason, Andrew E. Dudley, Thomas A. Lorenzen and\\nPreetha Chakrabarti were with him on brief.\\n\\n Mark Brnovich, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney\\nGeneral for the State of Arizona, Dominic E. Draye, Solicitor\\nGeneral at the time the brief was filed, Andrew G. Pappas and\\nKeith Miller, Associate Solicitors General, Leslie C. Rutledge,\\nAttorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State\\nof Arkansas, Nicholas J. Bronni, Solicitor General, Jeff\\nLandry, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for\\nthe State of Louisiana, Elizabeth B. Murrill, Solicitor General,\\nMichelle White, Assistant Attorney General, Timothy C. Fox,\\nAttorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State\\nof Montana, Dale Schowengerdt, Solicitor General, Jahna\\nLindemuth, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General\\nfor the State of Alaska, Ashley Brown, Assistant Attorney\\nGeneral, Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Office of the\\nAttorney General for the State of Colorado, Bill Schuette,\\nAttorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State\\nof Michigan, Matthias Sayer, Special Assistant Attorney\\nGeneral, Office of the Attorney General for the State of New\\nMexico, Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney\\nGeneral for the State of South Carolina, James Emory Smith,\\nJr., Deputy Solicitor General, Sean Reyes, Attorney General,\\nOffice of the Attorney General for the State of Utah, Tyler\\nGreen, Solicitor General, Lara Katz, Special Assistant\\nAttorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State\\nof New Mexico, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General, Office\\nof the Attorney General for the State of Nevada, Lawrence\\nVanDyke, Solicitor General, Marty J. Jackley, Attorney\\nGeneral, Office of the Attorney General for the State of South\\n\\f 3\\nDakota, Steven R. Blair, Assistant Attorney General, Erik E.\\nPetersen and Michael M. Robinson, Senior Assistant Attorneys\\nGeneral, Office of the Attorney General for the State of\\nWyoming, Brad D. Schimel, Attorney General at the time the\\nbrief was filed, Office of the Attorney General for the State of\\nWisconsin, Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General at the time the\\nbrief was filed, and Luke N. Berg, Deputy Solicitor General at\\nthe time the brief was filed, were on joint brief for State\\nIntervenors’ in support of the respondents. Lee P. Rudofsky,\\nSolicitor, and Jamie L. Ewing, Assistant Attorney General,\\nOffice of the Attorney General for the State of Arkansas,\\nOramel H. Skinner, III, Solicitor, Office of the Attorney\\nGeneral for the State of Arizona, and Steven C. Kilpatrick,\\nAssistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for\\nthe State of Wisconsin, entered appearances.\\n\\n Steven G. Barringer was on brief for the amici curiae\\nAlaska Miners Association, et al. in support of the respondents.\\n\\n Before: HENDERSON and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges, and\\nSENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.\\n\\n KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: In January\\n2017, acting pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental\\nResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42\\nU.S.C. § 9608(b), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)\\nproposed setting financial responsibility requirements for the\\nhardrock mining industry. Financial Responsibility\\nRequirements Under CERCLA § 108(b) for Classes of\\nFacilities in the Hardrock Mining Industry (Proposed Rule), 82\\nFed. Reg. 3388 (Jan. 11, 2017). Other federal agencies, state\\nagencies and industry representatives submitted comments\\nopposing the EPA’s proposal as unnecessary due to existing\\n\\f 4\\nfederal and state programs and modern mining practices. The\\nEPA ultimately agreed with the comments and announced in\\nFebruary 2018 that it decided not to issue financial\\nresponsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry.\\nFinancial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA\\nSection 108(b) for Classes of Facilities in the Hardrock Mining\\nIndustry (Final Action), 83 Fed. Reg. 7556, 7556 (Feb. 21,\\n2018). Following the EPA’s announcement, six\\nenvironmental organizations—the Idaho Conservation League,\\nEarthworks, Sierra Club, Amigos Bravos, Great Basin\\nResource Watch and Communities for a Better Environment\\n(collectively, “Environmental Groups”)—jointly petitioned for\\nreview of the EPA’s decision, arguing that it is contrary to\\nCERCLA, arbitrary and capricious and procedurally defective.\\nFor the reasons set forth infra, we deny the petition.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n The Congress enacted CERCLA as a “response to the\\nserious environmental and health risks posed by industrial\\npollution.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States,\\n556 U.S. 599, 602 (2009). CERCLA mitigates the harm\\ncaused by industrial pollution by “promot[ing] the ‘timely\\ncleanup of hazardous waste sites’” and by “ensur[ing] that the\\ncosts of such cleanup efforts [are] borne by those responsible\\nfor the contamination.” Id. (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v.\\nUGI Utils., Inc., 423 F.3d 90, 94 (2d Cir. 2005)). Specifically,\\nCERCLA provides the EPA with two mechanisms for doing\\nso. First, the EPA can take “response actions” to address past\\nor impending releases of hazardous substances. 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 9604. The EPA initially finances these response actions\\nwith CERCLA’s Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund),\\nid. § 9611, after which the EPA can initiate cost-recovery\\nactions against responsible parties, id. § 9607(a). Second, the\\nEPA can compel responsible parties, via administrative or\\n\\f 5\\ncourt order, to undertake and finance response actions directly.\\nId. § 9606(a).\\n\\n To ensure that responsible parties have the wherewithal\\neither to reimburse the Superfund or to finance their own\\nresponse actions, CERCLA mandates that the EPA require\\ncertain classes of facilities identified by the EPA to “establish\\nand maintain evidence of financial responsibility” by\\nobtaining, inter alia, insurance, surety bonds or letters of credit.\\nId. § 9608(b). 1 The financial responsibility requirements\\nmust be “consistent with the degree and duration of risk\\nassociated with the production, transportation, treatment,\\nstorage, or disposal of hazardous substances.” Id.\\n§ 9608(b)(1). Moreover, “[t]he level of financial\\nresponsibility shall be initially established, and, when\\nnecessary, adjusted to protect against the level of risk which the\\n[EPA] in [its] discretion believes is appropriate based on the\\npayment experience of the Fund, commercial insurers, court[]\\nsettlements and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction.”\\nId. § 9608(b)(2). CERCLA instructed the EPA to “identify\\nthose classes [of facilities] for which requirements will be first\\ndeveloped” by 1983, prioritizing “those classes of facilities,\\nowners, and operators which the [EPA] determines present the\\nhighest level of risk of injury.” Id. § 9608(b)(1).\\n\\n Twenty-six years after CERCLA’s mandated deadline, the\\nEPA finally announced in 2009, in response to litigation, its\\ndecision to prioritize financial responsibility requirements for\\nthe hardrock mining industry. Identification of Priority\\nClasses of Facilities for Development of CERCLA\\nSection 108(b) Financial Responsibility Requirements, 74 Fed.\\n\\n 1\\n CERCLA authorizes the President to issue financial\\nresponsibility requirements, 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b), and the President\\ndelegated his authority in relevant part to the EPA, Exec. Order No.\\n12,580, 3 C.F.R. 193, 194, 198 (1988).\\n\\f 6\\nReg. 37,213, 37,213 (July 28, 2009); see Sierra Club v.\\nJohnson, No. C 08-01409, 2009 WL 482248, at *10 (N.D. Cal.\\nFeb. 25, 2009). It did not act on its announcement, however,\\nuntil the Environmental Groups petitioned for a writ of\\nmandamus from this Court directing the EPA to issue financial\\nresponsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry\\namong others. See In re Idaho Conservation League, 811 F.3d\\n502, 506 (D.C. Cir. 2016). While the petition was pending,\\nthe parties agreed to a schedule requiring the EPA to issue a\\nproposed rule for the hardrock mining industry by December\\n1, 2016 and to take final action by December 1, 2017. Id. at\\n506–07. In approving the proposed schedule, this Court\\nemphasized that the EPA “retains ‘discretion to promulgate a\\nrule or decline to do so.’” Id. at 514 (quoting Defs. of Wildlife\\nv. Perciasepe, 714 F.3d 1317, 1325 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 2013)).\\n\\n The EPA published its Proposed Rule on January 11, 2017.\\n82 Fed. Reg. at 3388. In the Proposed Rule, the EPA reviewed\\nthree reports that examined past and present mining practices,\\nevidence of exposure to hazardous substances at mining sites\\nand releases at several recently or currently operating mines.\\nId. at 3471–75. Based on the reports, the EPA found\\n“abundant evidence that hardrock mining facilities continue to\\npose risks associated with the management of hazardous\\nsubstances at their sites,” id. at 3470, and accordingly proposed\\nissuing financial responsibility requirements for the industry,\\nid. at 3388.\\n\\n The United States Department of the Interior’s Bureau of\\nLand Management, the United States Forest Service, several\\nstate agencies and industry representatives submitted\\ncomments opposing the Proposed Rule. See Final Action, 83\\nFed. Reg. at 7560, 7566. The comments focused on two\\nalleged deficiencies in the Proposed Rule. First, the\\ncommenters argued that the Proposed Rule “[r]elied on\\n\\f 7\\ninappropriate evidence, such as data that did not demonstrate\\nrisk, and evidence not relevant to the facilities to be regulated\\nunder the rule.” Id. at 7560. Second, the commenters urged\\nthat the Proposed Rule “failed to consider relevant evidence,”\\nincluding “the role of federal and state mining programs and\\nvoluntary protective mining practices in reducing risks at\\ncurrent hardrock mining operations” as well as “the reduced\\ncosts to the taxpayer resulting from effective hardrock mining\\nprograms, including existing financial responsibility\\nrequirements, and owner or operator responses.” Id. (footnote\\nomitted).\\n\\n The EPA ultimately agreed with those opposed to the\\nProposed Rule and announced on February 21, 2018 that it had\\ndecided not to issue financial responsibility regulations for the\\nhardrock mining industry. Id. at 7556 (Final Action). In\\nparticular, the EPA found that existing federal and state\\nprograms as well as modern mining practices reduced the risk\\nthat the EPA would be required to use the Superfund to finance\\nresponse actions at currently active mines. Id. The EPA also\\nexplained in its Technical Support Document to the Final\\nAction why it no longer found persuasive many of the site-\\nspecific case studies contained in the reports relied upon in the\\nProposed Rule. Id. at 7581–83; CERCLA Section 108(b)\\nHardrock Mining Final Rule Technical Support Document\\n(TSD) 1–71. In particular, the EPA observed that (1) some of\\nthe sites discussed in the Proposed Rule operated before the\\ndevelopment of modern mining regulatory schemes, rendering\\ntheir “legacy contamination” irrelevant in determining modern\\nmining risks, (2) many of the sites were cleaned up without\\nSuperfund expenditures—through either funds from private\\nparties or preexisting financial responsibility obligations—and\\nthus were irrelevant in determining risks of taxpayer funded\\ncleanups and (3) spills at several of the sites occurred as a result\\nof problems since addressed by updated state regulations. See\\n\\f 8\\nid. at 5–6. The Environmental Groups timely petitioned for\\nreview. See 42 U.S.C. § 9613(a) (review must be sought\\n“within ninety days from the date of promulgation”).\\n\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n\\n We have jurisdiction to review regulations the EPA\\npromulgates under CERCLA. Id. Although it is debatable\\nwhether the EPA’s Final Action qualifies as a “regulation,” 2\\nwe have jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1651(a), to review the EPA’s “withdrawal of a proposed\\nrule . . . in order ‘to support [our] ultimate power of review.’”\\nInt’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. U.S. Dep’t of\\nLabor, 358 F.3d 40, 43 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (alteration in original)\\n(quoting Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d\\n70, 76 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). We may set aside the EPA’s Final\\nAction if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or\\notherwise not in accordance with law” or is “in excess of\\nstatutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of\\nstatutory right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C). We address in\\nturn the Environmental Groups’ arguments that the Final\\nAction rests on an incorrect interpretation of CERCLA, is\\n\\n 2\\n To assess whether agency action constitutes a “regulation,”\\nwe examine three factors: “(1) the Agency’s own characterization of\\nthe action; (2) whether the action was published in the Federal\\nRegister or the Code of Federal Regulations; and (3) whether the\\naction has binding effects on private parties or on the agency.”\\nMolycorp, Inc. v. EPA, 197 F.3d 543, 545–46 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The\\nfirst two factors indisputably cut in favor of finding the EPA’s Final\\nAction to be a regulation—the EPA characterized the Final Action\\nas a regulation and published it in the Federal Register, 83 Fed. Reg.\\nat 7556, 7557 n.8. It is unclear, however, whether the Final Action\\nbinds private parties or the Agency because it simply manifests the\\nEPA’s decision not to promulgate financial responsibility\\nrequirements for the hardrock mining industry.\\n\\f 9\\narbitrary and capricious based on the record and is not a logical\\noutgrowth of the Proposed Rule.\\n\\n A. Statutory Interpretation\\n\\n The Environmental Groups mount two statutory\\nchallenges. First, they claim that the EPA wrongly interpreted\\n“risk” in the operative provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b) as\\nlimited to the risk of taxpayer funded response actions.\\nSecond, they contend that, regardless of the meaning of “risk,”\\nCERCLA requires the EPA to promulgate some financial\\nresponsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry.\\nWe review the EPA’s interpretation of CERCLA under the\\nfamiliar Chevron two-step framework, deferring to the EPA’s\\ninterpretation if (1) the statutory text is ambiguous and (2) the\\nEPA’s interpretation of the text is reasonable. See Chevron,\\nU.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–\\n845 (1984).\\n\\n 1. § 9608(b) “Risk”\\n\\n CERCLA’s financial responsibility provision, 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 9068(b), includes three clauses that use “risk.” First, in the\\n“general mandate clause,” CERCLA obligates the EPA to\\nrequire certain classes of facilities to “establish and maintain\\nevidence of financial responsibility consistent with the degree\\nand duration of risk associated with the production,\\ntransportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous\\nsubstances.” 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b)(1) (emphasis added).\\nSecond, in the “prioritization clause,” CERCLA directs the\\nEPA to prioritize issuing financial responsibility requirements\\nfor “those classes of facilities, owners, and operators which the\\n[EPA] determines present the highest level of risk of injury.”\\nId. (emphasis added). Third, the “amount clause” instructs the\\nEPA to set financial responsibility requirements in the amount\\nnecessary “to protect against the level of risk which the [EPA]\\n\\f 10\\nin [its] discretion believes is appropriate based on the payment\\nexperience of the Fund, commercial insurers, court[]\\nsettlements and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction.”\\nId. § 9608(b)(2) (emphasis added).\\n\\n The parties agree that § 9608(b), by modifying “risk” with\\n“of injury” in the prioritization clause, requires the EPA to\\nconsider the risk of harm to human health and the environment\\nin deciding the classes of facilities for which it should prioritize\\nissuing financial responsibility requirements. The\\nEnvironmental Groups, however, fault the EPA for interpreting\\nthe general mandate and amount clauses as not requiring the\\nEPA to account for risks to human health and the environment\\nin deciding whether and to what extent to set financial\\nresponsibility requirements, instead requiring only that the\\nEPA consider financial risks, such as the “risk of taxpayer\\nfunded response actions.” Final Action, 83 Fed. Reg at 7556,\\n7567, 7568; accord id. at 7557, 7562 see also id. at 7558\\n(faulting Proposed Rule for considering “information unrelated\\nto risks of taxpayer financed costs posed by the current\\nfacilities to which the proposed rule would apply”). 3\\n\\n Whether the Congress intended “risk” in § 9608(b)’s\\ngeneral mandate and amount clauses to encompass risks to\\nhealth and the environment is ambiguous. Neither party\\ndisputes that the unmodified term “risk” is ambiguous. The\\nEnvironmental Groups, however, urge that, because the\\nCongress used the term “risk” in the prioritization clause and\\nother provisions of CERCLA to refer to health and\\nenvironmental harms, it must have intended to employ the\\nsame meaning in the general mandate and amount clauses.\\nThe Environmental Groups are correct that “[n]ormally, the\\n\\n 3\\n Although the EPA maintains that it considered human health\\nand environmental risks in its Final Action, see 83 Fed. Reg. at 7570–\\n81, its brief claims that CERCLA did not require it to do so.\\n\\f 11\\nsame word appearing in different portions of a single provision\\nor act is taken to have the same meaning in each appearance.”\\nWeaver v. U.S. Info. Agency, 87 F.3d 1429, 1437 (D.C. Cir.\\n1996). The general rule, however, “is defeasible”—that is,\\n“[i]dentical words may have different meanings where ‘the\\nsubject-matter to which the words refer is not the same in the\\nseveral places where they are used, or the conditions are\\ndifferent.’” Id. (quoting Atl. Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United\\nStates, 286 U.S. 427, 433 (1932)). The text of § 9608(b)\\nsuggests that the Congress may have intended “risk” to have\\ndifferent meanings in the three clauses. For example, the\\nCongress included the phrase “of injury” to modify “risk” in\\nthe prioritization clause but omitted it from the other two\\nclauses. See 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b). Indeed, the Congress used\\nonly financial terms to modify “risk” in the amount clause.\\nSee id. § 9608(b)(2) (considering “the payment experience of\\nthe Fund, commercial insurers, court[] settlements and\\njudgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction”). Thus, the\\ngeneral rule that terms carry the same meaning throughout a\\nstatutory provision may not be applicable to § 9608(b), making\\nthe meaning of “risk” in the general mandate and amount\\nclauses ambiguous. CERCLA’s general purpose provides no\\ngreater clarity. Although CERCLA’s primary purpose is to\\naddress health and environmental harms resulting from\\nindustrial pollution, Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 556\\nU.S. at 602, § 9608(b) may nonetheless also serve the narrower\\npurpose of ensuring that the EPA can recover the costs of\\ncleanup from responsible parties.\\n\\n We believe the EPA’s interpretation is reasonable. As\\nnoted, the Congress used only financial terms to describe the\\nrelevant “risk” in the amount clause. See 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 9608(b)(2). It is plausible, as the EPA contends, that the\\nCongress intended it to consider the same risks in deciding\\nwhether to issue any financial responsibility requirements\\n\\f 12\\nunder the general mandate clause. The structure of § 9608\\nsupports the EPA’s position. Section 9608(a), the immediate\\npredecessor provision, creates financial responsibility\\nrequirements for vessels to cover their liability to the EPA in\\nthe event of a Superfund-financed cost recovery action. Id.\\n§ 9608(a). Similarly, § 9608(c), the immediate successor\\nprovision, authorizes the EPA to recover cleanup costs by\\nasserting claims directly against the providers of financial\\nresponsibility instruments. Id. § 9608(c). Although not\\nunambiguous, § 9608(a) and § 9608(c) lend support to the\\nEPA’s reading that the financial responsibility requirements\\npromulgated under § 9608 relate only to ensuring against\\nfinancial risks associated with cleanup costs.\\n\\n Because § 9608(b)’s use of “risk” in the general mandate\\nand amount clauses is ambiguous and the EPA’s interpretation\\nis reasonable, we defer to the EPA’s interpretation that it\\nshould set financial responsibility regulations based on\\nfinancial risks, not risks to health and the environment.\\n\\n 2. EPA’s Decision Not to Regulate\\n\\n The Environmental Groups next argue that whatever\\ndiscretion § 9608(b) grants the EPA in setting the amount of\\nfinancial responsibility requirements, it does not include the\\ndecision not to promulgate financial responsibility\\nrequirements for the hardrock mining industry. The\\nEnvironmental Groups point to § 9608’s use of the obligatory\\n“shall” in instructing the EPA to promulgate financial\\nresponsibility requirements. See 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b)(1).\\n\\n The Environmental Groups overstate § 9608(b)’s\\nmandate. Although the provision directs that the EPA “shall”\\npromulgate financial responsibility requirements for certain\\n“classes of facilities,” the provision does not specify which\\nclasses of facilities. See id. The omission leaves discretion\\n\\f 13\\nin the EPA to determine the classes of facilities for which it\\nshould issue requirements. We said as much in the\\nEnvironmental Groups’ previous mandamus action when we\\nnoted that the EPA “retains ‘discretion to promulgate a rule or\\ndecline to do so’” and that the EPA’s decision to undertake a\\nrulemaking “neither resolves the substance of any rulemaking\\nnor even which classes of hardrock mining facilities will be\\nregulated.” In re Idaho Conservation League, 811 F.3d at 514\\n(quoting Defs. of Wildlife, 714 F.3d at 1325 n.7).\\n\\n Relatedly, the Environmental Groups argue that the EPA\\ncannot avoid promulgating financial responsibility\\nrequirements on the ground that requirements already\\nmandated under other federal and state regulations provide an\\nadequate guarantee of financial accountability. The\\nEnvironmental Groups assert that § 9608(b)(1) requires the\\nEPA to issue financial responsibility requirements “in addition\\nto” those required under other federal laws. See 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 9608(b)(1). The phrase “in addition to,” however, modifies\\nthe types of facilities to be regulated, not the extent of financial\\nresponsibility requirements—that is, the EPA may need to\\npromulgate financial responsibility requirements “for facilities\\nin addition to those” covered by other federal statutes, id.\\n(emphasis added), but the phrase does not place any obligation\\non the EPA to issue redundant financial responsibility\\nrequirements. Consequently, nothing in § 9608(b) mandates\\nthe EPA to promulgate financial responsibility requirements\\nfor the hardrock mining industry, authorizing the EPA to\\ndecline to do so.\\n\\n B. Arbitrary and Capricious Challenges\\n\\n The Environmental Groups next challenge as arbitrary and\\ncapricious the substance of the EPA’s decision not to issue\\nfinancial responsibility requirements for the hardrock mining\\n\\f 14\\nindustry. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). An agency acts\\narbitrarily or capriciously if it “has relied on factors which\\nCongress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to\\nconsider an important aspect of the problem, offered an\\nexplanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence\\nbefore the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be\\nascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency\\nexpertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut.\\nAuto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). In reviewing the\\nEPA’s decision, we may not substitute our judgment for that of\\nthe EPA. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe,\\n401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971).\\n\\n A major portion of the Environmental Groups’ arbitrary\\nand capricious challenge focuses on what they contend is the\\nEPA’s failure to account adequately for risks to health and the\\nenvironment in its Final Action. As discussed, supra Section\\nII.A.1, however, we defer to the EPA’s interpretation of\\nCERCLA that it need not consider risks to health and the\\nenvironment in deciding whether to issue financial\\nresponsibility requirements. Accordingly, the EPA’s alleged\\nfailure to consider health or environmental risks, if any, does\\nnot render its decision arbitrary or capricious.\\n\\n The Environmental Groups additionally argue that the\\nEPA arbitrarily and capriciously ignored certain financial risks\\nand that it supported its Final Action with a faulty economic\\nanalysis. We are unpersuaded.\\n\\n 1. Financial Risks\\n\\n The EPA explained why it concluded that existing federal\\nand state programs and modern mining practices have obviated\\nthe need for new financial responsibility requirements. It first\\nsummarized the extensive regulatory requirements other\\nfederal programs and the states have developed “over the past\\n\\f 15\\nseveral decades.” Final Action, 83 Fed. Reg. at 7571; see id.\\nat 7565–67, 7571–80. In particular, it conducted an in-depth\\nreview of the mining programs of Nevada, New Mexico,\\nAlaska, Colorado and Montana, which together include\\napproximately 35% of all hardrock mines. Id. at 7572–77.4\\nIn reviewing the state regimes, the EPA found that they have\\ncomprehensive regulations governing how mines handle\\nhazardous substances and include their own financial\\nresponsibility requirements. See id. Although the EPA\\nacknowledged that “the risk of a release is never totally\\neliminated,” it concluded that “substantial advances have been\\nmade in the development of mining practices and the\\nimplementation of federal and state regulatory programs to\\naddress releases at hardrock mining facilities.” Id. at 7580.\\nIndeed, the EPA found that, of the $12.9 billion spent in\\nresponse to releases at hardrock mining facilities, only $4\\nbillion came from the Superfund and that the “vast majority”\\nof that $4 billion targeted legacy contamination, not ongoing\\nreleases. Id. at 7567. Ultimately, the EPA recognized that\\nexisting federal and state programs have minimized the need\\nfor the EPA’s expenditures to respond to “CERCLA-like”\\nreleases and have “reduce[d] the risk of federally financed\\nresponse actions to a low level.” Id. at 7565–66. The\\nremaining “handful of examples of sites where EPA has\\nincurred response costs, notwithstanding regulation under . . .\\n\\n 4\\n The EPA also alluded to, but did not discuss, record evidence\\nregarding the “protectiveness” of the regulatory regimes of Arizona,\\nUtah, South Dakota and Idaho. Id. at 7572. And the EPA noted\\nthat the record included information about other states that further\\nsupported its conclusion that existing regulations minimized the need\\nfor new financial responsibility requirements. See id. at 7567 &\\nn.96, 7577 & n.277 (citing the National Mining Association’s\\ncomment and report on state regulatory regimes, including the\\nregimes of California, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon,\\nWashington and Wyoming); see also id. at 7572 & n.157.\\n\\f 16\\nstate and federal law,” the EPA concluded, are not “an\\nappropriate basis for regulation” under § 9608(b). Id. at 7567.\\n\\n The Environmental Groups nonetheless claim that the\\nEPA ignored several relevant financial risks. First, they assert\\nthat the EPA failed to analyze all of the financial factors listed\\nin § 9608(b)(2)’s amount clause. The amount clause requires\\nthe EPA to consider “the payment experience of the Fund,\\ncommercial insurers, court[] settlements and judgments, and\\nvoluntary claims satisfaction.” 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b)(2).\\nAccording to the Environmental Groups, the EPA myopically\\nfocused on the first of these financial factors—“the payment\\nexperience of the Fund”—without addressing the others. We\\nbelieve the Environmental Groups have misread the record and\\nthe EPA’s analysis. The EPA credited some commenters’\\nconcern that commercial insurers would be unwilling to\\nprovide financial responsibility instruments “for the amounts\\nproposed in the forms specified.” Final Action, 83 Fed. Reg.\\nat 7583. Moreover, the EPA also expressly considered\\n“payments made pursuant to settlements and voluntary\\nresponse actions.” Id. at 7568; see also id. at 7567–68 &\\nn.103 (discussing settlement data). It ultimately decided not\\nto issue financial responsibility requirements for the hardrock\\nmining industry in large part because many ongoing cleanup\\nsites are “being paid for by private parties and through existing\\nfinancial assurance requirements.” TSD 15. The EPA’s\\nanalysis of the record demonstrates that it considered all of the\\nfinancial factors enumerated in § 9608(b)(2)’s amount clause.\\n\\n Second, the Environmental Groups complain that the EPA\\nfailed to account for the cost of natural resource damage\\nresulting from hazardous substance spills at mining sites. As\\nan initial matter, this objection appears to be an attempt to\\nresuscitate the Environmental Groups’ arguments regarding\\nrisks to health and the environment—arguments foreclosed by\\n\\f 17\\nthe EPA’s reasonable interpretation of “risk” in § 9608(b), see\\nsupra Section II.A.1. Regardless, the EPA discussed the role\\nof natural resource damages in setting financial responsibility\\nrequirements. Final Action, 83 Fed. Reg. at 7567 n.99, 7569,\\n7584. It reasonably concluded that “modern regulation of\\nboth process discharges and runoff, as well as reclamation\\nrequirements to control sources of contamination, significantly\\naddress” hardrock mining’s “impacts to natural resources.”\\nId. at 7569. The EPA thus did not arbitrarily or capriciously\\nignore costs associated with natural resource damage.\\n\\n Third, the Environmental Groups contend that the EPA\\nfailed to consider that hardrock mining has a higher rate of\\nbankruptcy than most industries and therefore poses a higher\\nrisk that abandoned hazardous waste will require long-term\\nremediation efforts. The EPA, however, expressly considered\\nthe consequence of bankruptcies in its Final Action. It\\nrecounted that states have changed their financial responsibility\\nrequirements to account for the risk of bankruptcy and\\naccordingly determined that existing regulations sufficiently\\naccount for the risks of long-term remediation efforts. See\\nFinal Action, 83 Fed. Reg. at 7569, 7577, 7580. We believe\\nits analysis of the risk of bankruptcy was neither arbitrary nor\\ncapricious.\\n\\n As a last note, the Environmental Groups highlight several\\nmining sites for which they believe existing financial\\nresponsibility requirements are inadequate. Whatever the\\nmerits of the Environmental Groups’ concern regarding the\\nsites, it does not undermine the reasonableness of the EPA’s\\ndecision not to promulgate additional financial responsibility\\nrequirements for the entire hardrock mining industry. As\\nnoted, the EPA found that only a small fraction of Superfund\\nfunds spent on response actions at hardrock mining sites went\\nto address active spills at currently operating mines. Id. at\\n\\f 18\\n7567. We decline to substitute our judgment for the EPA’s on\\nthe question whether a handful of sites with likely minimal\\nimpact on the Superfund justifies industry-wide financial\\nresponsibility requirements. See id.; Citizens to Preserve\\nOverton Park, Inc., 401 U.S. at 416.\\n\\n 2. Economic Impact Analysis\\n\\n The Environmental Groups also argue that the EPA\\ngrounded its Final Action on arbitrary economic analysis.\\n“Notwithstanding the absence of a statutory duty, . . . when an\\nagency decides to rely on a cost-benefit analysis as part of its\\nrulemaking, a serious flaw undermining that analysis can\\nrender the rule unreasonable.” Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders\\nv. EPA, 682 F.3d 1032, 1039–40 (D.C. Cir. 2012). We\\n“review such a cost-benefit analysis deferentially.” Id. at\\n1040.\\n\\n We find no “serious flaw” in the Final Action’s economic\\nanalysis. There, the EPA explained that the Proposed Rule\\nwould have cost the hardrock mining industry $111 to $171\\nmillion per year “to procure third-party instruments.” 83 Fed.\\nReg. at 7585. But it also predicted that the Proposed Rule\\nwould have shifted only $15 to $15.5 million “in annual\\nliability from the federal government to the regulated\\nindustry.” Id. Although the EPA recognized that these two\\nsets of numbers are “not readily comparable,” it observed that\\n“the projected annualized costs to industry . . . are a magnitude\\nof order higher than the avoided costs to the government . . .\\nsought by the [Proposed Rule].” Id.\\n\\n The Environmental Groups challenge the EPA’s analysis\\nas inflating the costs of the Proposed Rule and ignoring its\\nhealth and environmental benefits. To start, the\\nEnvironmental Groups point out that most of the $111 to $171\\nmillion the hardrock mining industry would need to expend to\\n\\f 19\\ncomply with the Proposed Rule represents a transfer of money\\nfrom the mining industry to institutions providing financial\\nresponsibility instruments. Excluding the amount of the\\ntransfer, the Environmental Groups explain, would have\\nyielded a net societal cost of only $30 to $44 million, not $111\\nto $171 million. The EPA acknowledged as much. Final\\nAction, 83 Fed. Reg. at 7585 n.321. Importantly, the\\nEnvironmental Groups’ critique misses the point of the EPA’s\\nanalysis. The EPA expressly recognized that its estimates of\\n$111 to $171 million in costs to the hardrock mining industry\\nand $15 to $15.5 million in savings to the federal fisc are “not\\nreadily comparable.” Id. at 7585. Its acknowledgement\\ndemonstrates that the EPA did not intend to conduct a rigorous\\nsocietal cost-benefit analysis. Instead, the EPA compared in\\nbroad strokes the potential impact of the $111 to $171 million\\nannual bill on the hardrock mining industry—more mine\\nclosures and bankruptcies and stunted mining development due\\nto lost capital, id.—to the relatively small benefit to the federal\\nfisc. Such a general comparison is reasonable. Cf. Nat’l\\nWildlife Fed’n v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554, 563 (D.C. Cir. 2002)\\n(rejecting claim that “EPA’s economic analysis was inadequate\\nbecause it failed to give sufficient specifics to support the\\nreasonableness of its conclusions regarding economic impact”\\nand noting EPA’s “analysis may be general” so long as it\\nexplains its reasoning).\\n\\n The Environmental Groups also complain that the EPA\\nfailed to account for two benefits of the Proposed Rule’s\\nfinancial responsibility requirements—(1) greater incentive for\\nthe mining industry to follow best practices and (2) quicker\\nresponses to hazardous substance releases. As the EPA’s\\nanalysis elsewhere makes clear, existing federal and state\\nprograms impose significant financial responsibility\\nrequirements on the hardrock mining industry, id. at 7571–80,\\nand thereby already secure these benefits. The EPA therefore\\n\\f 20\\nneed not have considered these benefits as additional reasons\\nto adopt the Proposed Rule. Reviewing the EPA’s economic\\nanalysis deferentially, we conclude it is neither arbitrary nor\\ncapricious.\\n\\n C. Logical Outgrowth\\n\\n As a last resort, the Environmental Groups contend that we\\nshould vacate the Final Action because it is not a “logical\\noutgrowth” of the Proposed Rule. To satisfy the\\nAdministrative Procedure Act’s notice requirement, 5 U.S.C.\\n§ 553(b)(3), an agency’s final action must be a logical\\noutgrowth of its proposed rule. E.g., CSX Transp., Inc. v. STB,\\n584 F.3d 1076, 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “A final rule qualifies\\nas a logical outgrowth ‘if interested parties should have\\nanticipated that the change was possible, and thus reasonably\\nshould have filed their comments on the subject during the\\nnotice-and-comment period.’” Id. at 1079–80 (quoting Ne.\\nMd. Waste Disposal Auth. v. EPA, 358 F.3d 936, 952 (D.C. Cir.\\n2004) (per curiam)). On the other hand, a final rule is not a\\nlogical outgrowth if “interested parties would have had to\\ndivine [the agency’s] unspoken thoughts, because the final rule\\nwas surprisingly distant from the proposed rule.’” Id. at 1080\\n(alteration in original) (quoting Int’l Union, United Mine\\nWorkers of Am. v. MSHA, 407 F.3d 1250, 1259–60 (D.C. Cir.\\n2005)).\\n\\n Under Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, the EPA’s\\nFinal Action not to adopt financial responsibility requirements\\nfor the hardrock mining industry constitutes a logical\\noutgrowth of the Proposed Rule because “[o]ne logical\\noutgrowth of a proposal is surely . . . to refrain from taking the\\nproposed step,” New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 44 (D.C. Cir.\\n2005) (per curiam) (quoting Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 886\\nF.2d 390, 400 (D.C. Cir. 1989)); accord Long Island Care at\\n\\f 21\\nHome, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 175 (2007) (“Since the\\nproposed rule was simply a proposal, its presence meant that\\nthe Department was considering the matter; after that\\nconsideration the Department might choose to adopt the\\nproposal or to withdraw it. As it turned out, the Department\\ndid withdraw the proposal . . . . We do not understand why\\nsuch a possibility was not reasonably foreseeable.”). That the\\nEPA might choose not to promulgate financial responsibility\\nrequirements for the hardrock mining industry has always been\\na foreseeable possibility; our decision in the Environmental\\nGroups’ previous mandamus action expressly recognized that\\nthe EPA “retains ‘discretion to promulgate a rule or decline to\\ndo so.’” In re Idaho Conservation League, 811 F.3d at 514\\n(quoting Defs. of Wildlife, 714 at 1325 n.7).\\n\\n Kicking against the goads, the Environmental Groups\\nmaintain that even if the EPA’s decision not to promulgate\\nfinancial responsibility requirements for the hardrock mining\\nindustry is a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule, its\\nreasons for changing course are not. Specifically, the\\nEnvironmental Groups urge that the Proposed Rule did not put\\ninterested parties on notice that the EPA intended to embrace a\\nnew construction of “risk” in § 9608(b) or to “dramatically\\nnarrow[] the evidence it deemed relevant.” An agency’s\\ndecision to withdraw a proposed rule ordinarily stems from a\\nchanged view of the governing law or underlying facts. See,\\ne.g., Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. at 163–\\n65 (Labor Department decided not to adopt proposed rule\\nbecause of changed interpretation of governing statute); Ariz.\\nPub. Serv. Co. v. EPA, 211 F.3d 1280, 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2000)\\n(EPA chose not to adopt proposed rule due to intervening issue\\nregarding tribal immunity). Such a changed view does not\\nalter whether an agency’s decision to withdraw a proposed rule\\nis a logical outgrowth of the proposal. See, e.g., Long Island\\nCare at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. at 175; Ariz. Pub. Serv.\\n\\f 22\\nCo., 211 F.3d at 1299. The Proposed Rule contained the\\nEPA’s preliminary interpretation of § 9608(b) and its\\nunderstanding of the data regarding hazardous waste produced\\nat hardrock mining sites. 82 Fed. Reg. at 3389, 3400. It\\nadequately put interested parties on notice that the EPA was\\nplanning regulatory action that might, as happened, not\\nmaterialize.\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, the Environmental Groups’\\npetition is denied.\\n\\n So ordered.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4418450/\", \"author_raw\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"HENDERSON"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"GRIFFITH"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SENTELLE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641197/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE, Et Al., Petitioners v. Andrew WHEELER, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents Albemarle Corporation, Et Al., Intervenors\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-19\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued March 13, 2019 Decided July 19, 2019\n\n No. 18-1141\n\n IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE, ET AL.,\n PETITIONERS\n\n v.\n\n ANDREW WHEELER, ADMINISTRATOR,\n U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND\n ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,\n RESPONDENTS\n\n ALBEMARLE CORPORATION, ET AL.,\n INTERVENORS\n\n\n On Petition for Review of Final Action by\n the United States Environmental Protection Agency\n\n\n Amanda W. Goodin argued the cause for the petitioners.\nJan E. Hasselman and Jaimini Parekh were with her on brief.\nPatti A. Goldman entered an appearance.\n\n Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Assistant Attorney General, United\nStates Department of Justice, argued the cause for the\nrespondents. Jonathan Brightbill, Deputy Assistant Attorney\nGeneral, and John E. Sullivan, Attorney, were with him on\nbrief.\n\f 2\n Brian T. Burgess argued the cause for the Industry\nIntervenors. Michael S. Giannotto, Andrew Kim, Kevin P.\nMartin, Keith Bradley, Carolyn L. McIntosh, Kevin A. Gaynor,\nJeremy C. Marwell, Joshua S. Johnson, George A. Tsiolis,\nChris S. Leason, Andrew E. Dudley, Thomas A. Lorenzen and\nPreetha Chakrabarti were with him on brief.\n\n Mark Brnovich, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney\nGeneral for the State of Arizona, Dominic E. Draye, Solicitor\nGeneral at the time the brief was filed, Andrew G. Pappas and\nKeith Miller, Associate Solicitors General, Leslie C. Rutledge,\nAttorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State\nof Arkansas, Nicholas J. Bronni, Solicitor General, Jeff\nLandry, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for\nthe State of Louisiana, Elizabeth B. Murrill, Solicitor General,\nMichelle White, Assistant Attorney General, Timothy C. Fox,\nAttorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State\nof Montana, Dale Schowengerdt, Solicitor General, Jahna\nLindemuth, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General\nfor the State of Alaska, Ashley Brown, Assistant Attorney\nGeneral, Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Office of the\nAttorney General for the State of Colorado, Bill Schuette,\nAttorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State\nof Michigan, Matthias Sayer, Special Assistant Attorney\nGeneral, Office of the Attorney General for the State of New\nMexico, Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney\nGeneral for the State of South Carolina, James Emory Smith,\nJr., Deputy Solicitor General, Sean Reyes, Attorney General,\nOffice of the Attorney General for the State of Utah, Tyler\nGreen, Solicitor General, Lara Katz, Special Assistant\nAttorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State\nof New Mexico, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General, Office\nof the Attorney General for the State of Nevada, Lawrence\nVanDyke, Solicitor General, Marty J. Jackley, Attorney\nGeneral, Office of the Attorney General for the State of South\n\f 3\nDakota, Steven R. Blair, Assistant Attorney General, Erik E.\nPetersen and Michael M. Robinson, Senior Assistant Attorneys\nGeneral, Office of the Attorney General for the State of\nWyoming, Brad D. Schimel, Attorney General at the time the\nbrief was filed, Office of the Attorney General for the State of\nWisconsin, Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General at the time the\nbrief was filed, and Luke N. Berg, Deputy Solicitor General at\nthe time the brief was filed, were on joint brief for State\nIntervenors’ in support of the respondents. Lee P. Rudofsky,\nSolicitor, and Jamie L. Ewing, Assistant Attorney General,\nOffice of the Attorney General for the State of Arkansas,\nOramel H. Skinner, III, Solicitor, Office of the Attorney\nGeneral for the State of Arizona, and Steven C. Kilpatrick,\nAssistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for\nthe State of Wisconsin, entered appearances.\n\n Steven G. Barringer was on brief for the amici curiae\nAlaska Miners Association, et al. in support of the respondents.\n\n Before: HENDERSON and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges, and\nSENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.\n\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.\n\n KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: In January\n2017, acting pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental\nResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42\nU.S.C. § 9608(b), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)\nproposed setting financial responsibility requirements for the\nhardrock mining industry. Financial Responsibility\nRequirements Under CERCLA § 108(b) for Classes of\nFacilities in the Hardrock Mining Industry (Proposed Rule), 82\nFed. Reg. 3388 (Jan. 11, 2017). Other federal agencies, state\nagencies and industry representatives submitted comments\nopposing the EPA’s proposal as unnecessary due to existing\n\f 4\nfederal and state programs and modern mining practices. The\nEPA ultimately agreed with the comments and announced in\nFebruary 2018 that it decided not to issue financial\nresponsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry.\nFinancial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA\nSection 108(b) for Classes of Facilities in the Hardrock Mining\nIndustry (Final Action), 83 Fed. Reg. 7556, 7556 (Feb. 21,\n2018). Following the EPA’s announcement, six\nenvironmental organizations—the Idaho Conservation League,\nEarthworks, Sierra Club, Amigos Bravos, Great Basin\nResource Watch and Communities for a Better Environment\n(collectively, “Environmental Groups”)—jointly petitioned for\nreview of the EPA’s decision, arguing that it is contrary to\nCERCLA, arbitrary and capricious and procedurally defective.\nFor the reasons set forth infra, we deny the petition.\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n\n The Congress enacted CERCLA as a “response to the\nserious environmental and health risks posed by industrial\npollution.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States,\n556 U.S. 599, 602 (2009). CERCLA mitigates the harm\ncaused by industrial pollution by “promot[ing] the ‘timely\ncleanup of hazardous waste sites’” and by “ensur[ing] that the\ncosts of such cleanup efforts [are] borne by those responsible\nfor the contamination.” Id. (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v.\nUGI Utils., Inc., 423 F.3d 90, 94 (2d Cir. 2005)). Specifically,\nCERCLA provides the EPA with two mechanisms for doing\nso. First, the EPA can take “response actions” to address past\nor impending releases of hazardous substances. 42 U.S.C.\n§ 9604. The EPA initially finances these response actions\nwith CERCLA’s Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund),\nid. § 9611, after which the EPA can initiate cost-recovery\nactions against responsible parties, id. § 9607(a). Second, the\nEPA can compel responsible parties, via administrative or\n\f 5\ncourt order, to undertake and finance response actions directly.\nId. § 9606(a).\n\n To ensure that responsible parties have the wherewithal\neither to reimburse the Superfund or to finance their own\nresponse actions, CERCLA mandates that the EPA require\ncertain classes of facilities identified by the EPA to “establish\nand maintain evidence of financial responsibility” by\nobtaining, inter alia, insurance, surety bonds or letters of credit.\nId. § 9608(b). 1 The financial responsibility requirements\nmust be “consistent with the degree and duration of risk\nassociated with the production, transportation, treatment,\nstorage, or disposal of hazardous substances.” Id.\n§ 9608(b)(1). Moreover, “[t]he level of financial\nresponsibility shall be initially established, and, when\nnecessary, adjusted to protect against the level of risk which the\n[EPA] in [its] discretion believes is appropriate based on the\npayment experience of the Fund, commercial insurers, court[]\nsettlements and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction.”\nId. § 9608(b)(2). CERCLA instructed the EPA to “identify\nthose classes [of facilities] for which requirements will be first\ndeveloped” by 1983, prioritizing “those classes of facilities,\nowners, and operators which the [EPA] determines present the\nhighest level of risk of injury.” Id. § 9608(b)(1).\n\n Twenty-six years after CERCLA’s mandated deadline, the\nEPA finally announced in 2009, in response to litigation, its\ndecision to prioritize financial responsibility requirements for\nthe hardrock mining industry. Identification of Priority\nClasses of Facilities for Development of CERCLA\nSection 108(b) Financial Responsibility Requirements, 74 Fed.\n\n 1\n CERCLA authorizes the President to issue financial\nresponsibility requirements, 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b), and the President\ndelegated his authority in relevant part to the EPA, Exec. Order No.\n12,580, 3 C.F.R. 193, 194, 198 (1988).\n\f 6\nReg. 37,213, 37,213 (July 28, 2009); see Sierra Club v.\nJohnson, No. C 08-01409, 2009 WL 482248, at *10 (N.D. Cal.\nFeb. 25, 2009). It did not act on its announcement, however,\nuntil the Environmental Groups petitioned for a writ of\nmandamus from this Court directing the EPA to issue financial\nresponsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry\namong others. See In re Idaho Conservation League, 811 F.3d\n502, 506 (D.C. Cir. 2016). While the petition was pending,\nthe parties agreed to a schedule requiring the EPA to issue a\nproposed rule for the hardrock mining industry by December\n1, 2016 and to take final action by December 1, 2017. Id. at\n506–07. In approving the proposed schedule, this Court\nemphasized that the EPA “retains ‘discretion to promulgate a\nrule or decline to do so.’” Id. at 514 (quoting Defs. of Wildlife\nv. Perciasepe, 714 F.3d 1317, 1325 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 2013)).\n\n The EPA published its Proposed Rule on January 11, 2017.\n82 Fed. Reg. at 3388. In the Proposed Rule, the EPA reviewed\nthree reports that examined past and present mining practices,\nevidence of exposure to hazardous substances at mining sites\nand releases at several recently or currently operating mines.\nId. at 3471–75. Based on the reports, the EPA found\n“abundant evidence that hardrock mining facilities continue to\npose risks associated with the management of hazardous\nsubstances at their sites,” id. at 3470, and accordingly proposed\nissuing financial responsibility requirements for the industry,\nid. at 3388.\n\n The United States Department of the Interior’s Bureau of\nLand Management, the United States Forest Service, several\nstate agencies and industry representatives submitted\ncomments opposing the Proposed Rule. See Final Action, 83\nFed. Reg. at 7560, 7566. The comments focused on two\nalleged deficiencies in the Proposed Rule. First, the\ncommenters argued that the Proposed Rule “[r]elied on\n\f 7\ninappropriate evidence, such as data that did not demonstrate\nrisk, and evidence not relevant to the facilities to be regulated\nunder the rule.” Id. at 7560. Second, the commenters urged\nthat the Proposed Rule “failed to consider relevant evidence,”\nincluding “the role of federal and state mining programs and\nvoluntary protective mining practices in reducing risks at\ncurrent hardrock mining operations” as well as “the reduced\ncosts to the taxpayer resulting from effective hardrock mining\nprograms, including existing financial responsibility\nrequirements, and owner or operator responses.” Id. (footnote\nomitted).\n\n The EPA ultimately agreed with those opposed to the\nProposed Rule and announced on February 21, 2018 that it had\ndecided not to issue financial responsibility regulations for the\nhardrock mining industry. Id. at 7556 (Final Action). In\nparticular, the EPA found that existing federal and state\nprograms as well as modern mining practices reduced the risk\nthat the EPA would be required to use the Superfund to finance\nresponse actions at currently active mines. Id. The EPA also\nexplained in its Technical Support Document to the Final\nAction why it no longer found persuasive many of the site-\nspecific case studies contained in the reports relied upon in the\nProposed Rule. Id. at 7581–83; CERCLA Section 108(b)\nHardrock Mining Final Rule Technical Support Document\n(TSD) 1–71. In particular, the EPA observed that (1) some of\nthe sites discussed in the Proposed Rule operated before the\ndevelopment of modern mining regulatory schemes, rendering\ntheir “legacy contamination” irrelevant in determining modern\nmining risks, (2) many of the sites were cleaned up without\nSuperfund expenditures—through either funds from private\nparties or preexisting financial responsibility obligations—and\nthus were irrelevant in determining risks of taxpayer funded\ncleanups and (3) spills at several of the sites occurred as a result\nof problems since addressed by updated state regulations. See\n\f 8\nid. at 5–6. The Environmental Groups timely petitioned for\nreview. See 42 U.S.C. § 9613(a) (review must be sought\n“within ninety days from the date of promulgation”).\n\n II. ANALYSIS\n\n We have jurisdiction to review regulations the EPA\npromulgates under CERCLA. Id. Although it is debatable\nwhether the EPA’s Final Action qualifies as a “regulation,” 2\nwe have jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.\n§ 1651(a), to review the EPA’s “withdrawal of a proposed\nrule . . . in order ‘to support [our] ultimate power of review.’”\nInt’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. U.S. Dep’t of\nLabor, 358 F.3d 40, 43 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (alteration in original)\n(quoting Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d\n70, 76 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). We may set aside the EPA’s Final\nAction if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or\notherwise not in accordance with law” or is “in excess of\nstatutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of\nstatutory right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C). We address in\nturn the Environmental Groups’ arguments that the Final\nAction rests on an incorrect interpretation of CERCLA, is\n\n 2\n To assess whether agency action constitutes a “regulation,”\nwe examine three factors: “(1) the Agency’s own characterization of\nthe action; (2) whether the action was published in the Federal\nRegister or the Code of Federal Regulations; and (3) whether the\naction has binding effects on private parties or on the agency.”\nMolycorp, Inc. v. EPA, 197 F.3d 543, 545–46 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The\nfirst two factors indisputably cut in favor of finding the EPA’s Final\nAction to be a regulation—the EPA characterized the Final Action\nas a regulation and published it in the Federal Register, 83 Fed. Reg.\nat 7556, 7557 n.8. It is unclear, however, whether the Final Action\nbinds private parties or the Agency because it simply manifests the\nEPA’s decision not to promulgate financial responsibility\nrequirements for the hardrock mining industry.\n\f 9\narbitrary and capricious based on the record and is not a logical\noutgrowth of the Proposed Rule.\n\n A. Statutory Interpretation\n\n The Environmental Groups mount two statutory\nchallenges. First, they claim that the EPA wrongly interpreted\n“risk” in the operative provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b) as\nlimited to the risk of taxpayer funded response actions.\nSecond, they contend that, regardless of the meaning of “risk,”\nCERCLA requires the EPA to promulgate some financial\nresponsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry.\nWe review the EPA’s interpretation of CERCLA under the\nfamiliar Chevron two-step framework, deferring to the EPA’s\ninterpretation if (1) the statutory text is ambiguous and (2) the\nEPA’s interpretation of the text is reasonable. See Chevron,\nU.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–\n845 (1984).\n\n 1. § 9608(b) “Risk”\n\n CERCLA’s financial responsibility provision, 42 U.S.C.\n§ 9068(b), includes three clauses that use “risk.” First, in the\n“general mandate clause,” CERCLA obligates the EPA to\nrequire certain classes of facilities to “establish and maintain\nevidence of financial responsibility consistent with the degree\nand duration of risk associated with the production,\ntransportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous\nsubstances.” 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b)(1) (emphasis added).\nSecond, in the “prioritization clause,” CERCLA directs the\nEPA to prioritize issuing financial responsibility requirements\nfor “those classes of facilities, owners, and operators which the\n[EPA] determines present the highest level of risk of injury.”\nId. (emphasis added). Third, the “amount clause” instructs the\nEPA to set financial responsibility requirements in the amount\nnecessary “to protect against the level of risk which the [EPA]\n\f 10\nin [its] discretion believes is appropriate based on the payment\nexperience of the Fund, commercial insurers, court[]\nsettlements and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction.”\nId. § 9608(b)(2) (emphasis added).\n\n The parties agree that § 9608(b), by modifying “risk” with\n“of injury” in the prioritization clause, requires the EPA to\nconsider the risk of harm to human health and the environment\nin deciding the classes of facilities for which it should prioritize\nissuing financial responsibility requirements. The\nEnvironmental Groups, however, fault the EPA for interpreting\nthe general mandate and amount clauses as not requiring the\nEPA to account for risks to human health and the environment\nin deciding whether and to what extent to set financial\nresponsibility requirements, instead requiring only that the\nEPA consider financial risks, such as the “risk of taxpayer\nfunded response actions.” Final Action, 83 Fed. Reg at 7556,\n7567, 7568; accord id. at 7557, 7562 see also id. at 7558\n(faulting Proposed Rule for considering “information unrelated\nto risks of taxpayer financed costs posed by the current\nfacilities to which the proposed rule would apply”). 3\n\n Whether the Congress intended “risk” in § 9608(b)’s\ngeneral mandate and amount clauses to encompass risks to\nhealth and the environment is ambiguous. Neither party\ndisputes that the unmodified term “risk” is ambiguous. The\nEnvironmental Groups, however, urge that, because the\nCongress used the term “risk” in the prioritization clause and\nother provisions of CERCLA to refer to health and\nenvironmental harms, it must have intended to employ the\nsame meaning in the general mandate and amount clauses.\nThe Environmental Groups are correct that “[n]ormally, the\n\n 3\n Although the EPA maintains that it considered human health\nand environmental risks in its Final Action, see 83 Fed. Reg. at 7570–\n81, its brief claims that CERCLA did not require it to do so.\n\f 11\nsame word appearing in different portions of a single provision\nor act is taken to have the same meaning in each appearance.”\nWeaver v. U.S. Info. Agency, 87 F.3d 1429, 1437 (D.C. Cir.\n1996). The general rule, however, “is defeasible”—that is,\n“[i]dentical words may have different meanings where ‘the\nsubject-matter to which the words refer is not the same in the\nseveral places where they are used, or the conditions are\ndifferent.’” Id. (quoting Atl. Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United\nStates, 286 U.S. 427, 433 (1932)). The text of § 9608(b)\nsuggests that the Congress may have intended “risk” to have\ndifferent meanings in the three clauses. For example, the\nCongress included the phrase “of injury” to modify “risk” in\nthe prioritization clause but omitted it from the other two\nclauses. See 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b). Indeed, the Congress used\nonly financial terms to modify “risk” in the amount clause.\nSee id. § 9608(b)(2) (considering “the payment experience of\nthe Fund, commercial insurers, court[] settlements and\njudgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction”). Thus, the\ngeneral rule that terms carry the same meaning throughout a\nstatutory provision may not be applicable to § 9608(b), making\nthe meaning of “risk” in the general mandate and amount\nclauses ambiguous. CERCLA’s general purpose provides no\ngreater clarity. Although CERCLA’s primary purpose is to\naddress health and environmental harms resulting from\nindustrial pollution, Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 556\nU.S. at 602, § 9608(b) may nonetheless also serve the narrower\npurpose of ensuring that the EPA can recover the costs of\ncleanup from responsible parties.\n\n We believe the EPA’s interpretation is reasonable. As\nnoted, the Congress used only financial terms to describe the\nrelevant “risk” in the amount clause. See 42 U.S.C.\n§ 9608(b)(2). It is plausible, as the EPA contends, that the\nCongress intended it to consider the same risks in deciding\nwhether to issue any financial responsibility requirements\n\f 12\nunder the general mandate clause. The structure of § 9608\nsupports the EPA’s position. Section 9608(a), the immediate\npredecessor provision, creates financial responsibility\nrequirements for vessels to cover their liability to the EPA in\nthe event of a Superfund-financed cost recovery action. Id.\n§ 9608(a). Similarly, § 9608(c), the immediate successor\nprovision, authorizes the EPA to recover cleanup costs by\nasserting claims directly against the providers of financial\nresponsibility instruments. Id. § 9608(c). Although not\nunambiguous, § 9608(a) and § 9608(c) lend support to the\nEPA’s reading that the financial responsibility requirements\npromulgated under § 9608 relate only to ensuring against\nfinancial risks associated with cleanup costs.\n\n Because § 9608(b)’s use of “risk” in the general mandate\nand amount clauses is ambiguous and the EPA’s interpretation\nis reasonable, we defer to the EPA’s interpretation that it\nshould set financial responsibility regulations based on\nfinancial risks, not risks to health and the environment.\n\n 2. EPA’s Decision Not to Regulate\n\n The Environmental Groups next argue that whatever\ndiscretion § 9608(b) grants the EPA in setting the amount of\nfinancial responsibility requirements, it does not include the\ndecision not to promulgate financial responsibility\nrequirements for the hardrock mining industry. The\nEnvironmental Groups point to § 9608’s use of the obligatory\n“shall” in instructing the EPA to promulgate financial\nresponsibility requirements. See 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b)(1).\n\n The Environmental Groups overstate § 9608(b)’s\nmandate. Although the provision directs that the EPA “shall”\npromulgate financial responsibility requirements for certain\n“classes of facilities,” the provision does not specify which\nclasses of facilities. See id. The omission leaves discretion\n\f 13\nin the EPA to determine the classes of facilities for which it\nshould issue requirements. We said as much in the\nEnvironmental Groups’ previous mandamus action when we\nnoted that the EPA “retains ‘discretion to promulgate a rule or\ndecline to do so’” and that the EPA’s decision to undertake a\nrulemaking “neither resolves the substance of any rulemaking\nnor even which classes of hardrock mining facilities will be\nregulated.” In re Idaho Conservation League, 811 F.3d at 514\n(quoting Defs. of Wildlife, 714 F.3d at 1325 n.7).\n\n Relatedly, the Environmental Groups argue that the EPA\ncannot avoid promulgating financial responsibility\nrequirements on the ground that requirements already\nmandated under other federal and state regulations provide an\nadequate guarantee of financial accountability. The\nEnvironmental Groups assert that § 9608(b)(1) requires the\nEPA to issue financial responsibility requirements “in addition\nto” those required under other federal laws. See 42 U.S.C.\n§ 9608(b)(1). The phrase “in addition to,” however, modifies\nthe types of facilities to be regulated, not the extent of financial\nresponsibility requirements—that is, the EPA may need to\npromulgate financial responsibility requirements “for facilities\nin addition to those” covered by other federal statutes, id.\n(emphasis added), but the phrase does not place any obligation\non the EPA to issue redundant financial responsibility\nrequirements. Consequently, nothing in § 9608(b) mandates\nthe EPA to promulgate financial responsibility requirements\nfor the hardrock mining industry, authorizing the EPA to\ndecline to do so.\n\n B. Arbitrary and Capricious Challenges\n\n The Environmental Groups next challenge as arbitrary and\ncapricious the substance of the EPA’s decision not to issue\nfinancial responsibility requirements for the hardrock mining\n\f 14\nindustry. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). An agency acts\narbitrarily or capriciously if it “has relied on factors which\nCongress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to\nconsider an important aspect of the problem, offered an\nexplanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence\nbefore the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be\nascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency\nexpertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut.\nAuto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). In reviewing the\nEPA’s decision, we may not substitute our judgment for that of\nthe EPA. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe,\n401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971).\n\n A major portion of the Environmental Groups’ arbitrary\nand capricious challenge focuses on what they contend is the\nEPA’s failure to account adequately for risks to health and the\nenvironment in its Final Action. As discussed, supra Section\nII.A.1, however, we defer to the EPA’s interpretation of\nCERCLA that it need not consider risks to health and the\nenvironment in deciding whether to issue financial\nresponsibility requirements. Accordingly, the EPA’s alleged\nfailure to consider health or environmental risks, if any, does\nnot render its decision arbitrary or capricious.\n\n The Environmental Groups additionally argue that the\nEPA arbitrarily and capriciously ignored certain financial risks\nand that it supported its Final Action with a faulty economic\nanalysis. We are unpersuaded.\n\n 1. Financial Risks\n\n The EPA explained why it concluded that existing federal\nand state programs and modern mining practices have obviated\nthe need for new financial responsibility requirements. It first\nsummarized the extensive regulatory requirements other\nfederal programs and the states have developed “over the past\n\f 15\nseveral decades.” Final Action, 83 Fed. Reg. at 7571; see id.\nat 7565–67, 7571–80. In particular, it conducted an in-depth\nreview of the mining programs of Nevada, New Mexico,\nAlaska, Colorado and Montana, which together include\napproximately 35% of all hardrock mines. Id. at 7572–77.4\nIn reviewing the state regimes, the EPA found that they have\ncomprehensive regulations governing how mines handle\nhazardous substances and include their own financial\nresponsibility requirements. See id. Although the EPA\nacknowledged that “the risk of a release is never totally\neliminated,” it concluded that “substantial advances have been\nmade in the development of mining practices and the\nimplementation of federal and state regulatory programs to\naddress releases at hardrock mining facilities.” Id. at 7580.\nIndeed, the EPA found that, of the $12.9 billion spent in\nresponse to releases at hardrock mining facilities, only $4\nbillion came from the Superfund and that the “vast majority”\nof that $4 billion targeted legacy contamination, not ongoing\nreleases. Id. at 7567. Ultimately, the EPA recognized that\nexisting federal and state programs have minimized the need\nfor the EPA’s expenditures to respond to “CERCLA-like”\nreleases and have “reduce[d] the risk of federally financed\nresponse actions to a low level.” Id. at 7565–66. The\nremaining “handful of examples of sites where EPA has\nincurred response costs, notwithstanding regulation under . . .\n\n 4\n The EPA also alluded to, but did not discuss, record evidence\nregarding the “protectiveness” of the regulatory regimes of Arizona,\nUtah, South Dakota and Idaho. Id. at 7572. And the EPA noted\nthat the record included information about other states that further\nsupported its conclusion that existing regulations minimized the need\nfor new financial responsibility requirements. See id. at 7567 &\nn.96, 7577 & n.277 (citing the National Mining Association’s\ncomment and report on state regulatory regimes, including the\nregimes of California, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon,\nWashington and Wyoming); see also id. at 7572 & n.157.\n\f 16\nstate and federal law,” the EPA concluded, are not “an\nappropriate basis for regulation” under § 9608(b). Id. at 7567.\n\n The Environmental Groups nonetheless claim that the\nEPA ignored several relevant financial risks. First, they assert\nthat the EPA failed to analyze all of the financial factors listed\nin § 9608(b)(2)’s amount clause. The amount clause requires\nthe EPA to consider “the payment experience of the Fund,\ncommercial insurers, court[] settlements and judgments, and\nvoluntary claims satisfaction.” 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b)(2).\nAccording to the Environmental Groups, the EPA myopically\nfocused on the first of these financial factors—“the payment\nexperience of the Fund”—without addressing the others. We\nbelieve the Environmental Groups have misread the record and\nthe EPA’s analysis. The EPA credited some commenters’\nconcern that commercial insurers would be unwilling to\nprovide financial responsibility instruments “for the amounts\nproposed in the forms specified.” Final Action, 83 Fed. Reg.\nat 7583. Moreover, the EPA also expressly considered\n“payments made pursuant to settlements and voluntary\nresponse actions.” Id. at 7568; see also id. at 7567–68 &\nn.103 (discussing settlement data). It ultimately decided not\nto issue financial responsibility requirements for the hardrock\nmining industry in large part because many ongoing cleanup\nsites are “being paid for by private parties and through existing\nfinancial assurance requirements.” TSD 15. The EPA’s\nanalysis of the record demonstrates that it considered all of the\nfinancial factors enumerated in § 9608(b)(2)’s amount clause.\n\n Second, the Environmental Groups complain that the EPA\nfailed to account for the cost of natural resource damage\nresulting from hazardous substance spills at mining sites. As\nan initial matter, this objection appears to be an attempt to\nresuscitate the Environmental Groups’ arguments regarding\nrisks to health and the environment—arguments foreclosed by\n\f 17\nthe EPA’s reasonable interpretation of “risk” in § 9608(b), see\nsupra Section II.A.1. Regardless, the EPA discussed the role\nof natural resource damages in setting financial responsibility\nrequirements. Final Action, 83 Fed. Reg. at 7567 n.99, 7569,\n7584. It reasonably concluded that “modern regulation of\nboth process discharges and runoff, as well as reclamation\nrequirements to control sources of contamination, significantly\naddress” hardrock mining’s “impacts to natural resources.”\nId. at 7569. The EPA thus did not arbitrarily or capriciously\nignore costs associated with natural resource damage.\n\n Third, the Environmental Groups contend that the EPA\nfailed to consider that hardrock mining has a higher rate of\nbankruptcy than most industries and therefore poses a higher\nrisk that abandoned hazardous waste will require long-term\nremediation efforts. The EPA, however, expressly considered\nthe consequence of bankruptcies in its Final Action. It\nrecounted that states have changed their financial responsibility\nrequirements to account for the risk of bankruptcy and\naccordingly determined that existing regulations sufficiently\naccount for the risks of long-term remediation efforts. See\nFinal Action, 83 Fed. Reg. at 7569, 7577, 7580. We believe\nits analysis of the risk of bankruptcy was neither arbitrary nor\ncapricious.\n\n As a last note, the Environmental Groups highlight several\nmining sites for which they believe existing financial\nresponsibility requirements are inadequate. Whatever the\nmerits of the Environmental Groups’ concern regarding the\nsites, it does not undermine the reasonableness of the EPA’s\ndecision not to promulgate additional financial responsibility\nrequirements for the entire hardrock mining industry. As\nnoted, the EPA found that only a small fraction of Superfund\nfunds spent on response actions at hardrock mining sites went\nto address active spills at currently operating mines. Id. at\n\f 18\n7567. We decline to substitute our judgment for the EPA’s on\nthe question whether a handful of sites with likely minimal\nimpact on the Superfund justifies industry-wide financial\nresponsibility requirements. See id.; Citizens to Preserve\nOverton Park, Inc., 401 U.S. at 416.\n\n 2. Economic Impact Analysis\n\n The Environmental Groups also argue that the EPA\ngrounded its Final Action on arbitrary economic analysis.\n“Notwithstanding the absence of a statutory duty, . . . when an\nagency decides to rely on a cost-benefit analysis as part of its\nrulemaking, a serious flaw undermining that analysis can\nrender the rule unreasonable.” Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders\nv. EPA, 682 F.3d 1032, 1039–40 (D.C. Cir. 2012). We\n“review such a cost-benefit analysis deferentially.” Id. at\n1040.\n\n We find no “serious flaw” in the Final Action’s economic\nanalysis. There, the EPA explained that the Proposed Rule\nwould have cost the hardrock mining industry $111 to $171\nmillion per year “to procure third-party instruments.” 83 Fed.\nReg. at 7585. But it also predicted that the Proposed Rule\nwould have shifted only $15 to $15.5 million “in annual\nliability from the federal government to the regulated\nindustry.” Id. Although the EPA recognized that these two\nsets of numbers are “not readily comparable,” it observed that\n“the projected annualized costs to industry . . . are a magnitude\nof order higher than the avoided costs to the government . . .\nsought by the [Proposed Rule].” Id.\n\n The Environmental Groups challenge the EPA’s analysis\nas inflating the costs of the Proposed Rule and ignoring its\nhealth and environmental benefits. To start, the\nEnvironmental Groups point out that most of the $111 to $171\nmillion the hardrock mining industry would need to expend to\n\f 19\ncomply with the Proposed Rule represents a transfer of money\nfrom the mining industry to institutions providing financial\nresponsibility instruments. Excluding the amount of the\ntransfer, the Environmental Groups explain, would have\nyielded a net societal cost of only $30 to $44 million, not $111\nto $171 million. The EPA acknowledged as much. Final\nAction, 83 Fed. Reg. at 7585 n.321. Importantly, the\nEnvironmental Groups’ critique misses the point of the EPA’s\nanalysis. The EPA expressly recognized that its estimates of\n$111 to $171 million in costs to the hardrock mining industry\nand $15 to $15.5 million in savings to the federal fisc are “not\nreadily comparable.” Id. at 7585. Its acknowledgement\ndemonstrates that the EPA did not intend to conduct a rigorous\nsocietal cost-benefit analysis. Instead, the EPA compared in\nbroad strokes the potential impact of the $111 to $171 million\nannual bill on the hardrock mining industry—more mine\nclosures and bankruptcies and stunted mining development due\nto lost capital, id.—to the relatively small benefit to the federal\nfisc. Such a general comparison is reasonable. Cf. Nat’l\nWildlife Fed’n v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554, 563 (D.C. Cir. 2002)\n(rejecting claim that “EPA’s economic analysis was inadequate\nbecause it failed to give sufficient specifics to support the\nreasonableness of its conclusions regarding economic impact”\nand noting EPA’s “analysis may be general” so long as it\nexplains its reasoning).\n\n The Environmental Groups also complain that the EPA\nfailed to account for two benefits of the Proposed Rule’s\nfinancial responsibility requirements—(1) greater incentive for\nthe mining industry to follow best practices and (2) quicker\nresponses to hazardous substance releases. As the EPA’s\nanalysis elsewhere makes clear, existing federal and state\nprograms impose significant financial responsibility\nrequirements on the hardrock mining industry, id. at 7571–80,\nand thereby already secure these benefits. The EPA therefore\n\f 20\nneed not have considered these benefits as additional reasons\nto adopt the Proposed Rule. Reviewing the EPA’s economic\nanalysis deferentially, we conclude it is neither arbitrary nor\ncapricious.\n\n C. Logical Outgrowth\n\n As a last resort, the Environmental Groups contend that we\nshould vacate the Final Action because it is not a “logical\noutgrowth” of the Proposed Rule. To satisfy the\nAdministrative Procedure Act’s notice requirement, 5 U.S.C.\n§ 553(b)(3), an agency’s final action must be a logical\noutgrowth of its proposed rule. E.g., CSX Transp., Inc. v. STB,\n584 F.3d 1076, 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “A final rule qualifies\nas a logical outgrowth ‘if interested parties should have\nanticipated that the change was possible, and thus reasonably\nshould have filed their comments on the subject during the\nnotice-and-comment period.’” Id. at 1079–80 (quoting Ne.\nMd. Waste Disposal Auth. v. EPA, 358 F.3d 936, 952 (D.C. Cir.\n2004) (per curiam)). On the other hand, a final rule is not a\nlogical outgrowth if “interested parties would have had to\ndivine [the agency’s] unspoken thoughts, because the final rule\nwas surprisingly distant from the proposed rule.’” Id. at 1080\n(alteration in original) (quoting Int’l Union, United Mine\nWorkers of Am. v. MSHA, 407 F.3d 1250, 1259–60 (D.C. Cir.\n2005)).\n\n Under Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, the EPA’s\nFinal Action not to adopt financial responsibility requirements\nfor the hardrock mining industry constitutes a logical\noutgrowth of the Proposed Rule because “[o]ne logical\noutgrowth of a proposal is surely . . . to refrain from taking the\nproposed step,” New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 44 (D.C. Cir.\n2005) (per curiam) (quoting Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 886\nF.2d 390, 400 (D.C. Cir. 1989)); accord Long Island Care at\n\f 21\nHome, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 175 (2007) (“Since the\nproposed rule was simply a proposal, its presence meant that\nthe Department was considering the matter; after that\nconsideration the Department might choose to adopt the\nproposal or to withdraw it. As it turned out, the Department\ndid withdraw the proposal . . . . We do not understand why\nsuch a possibility was not reasonably foreseeable.”). That the\nEPA might choose not to promulgate financial responsibility\nrequirements for the hardrock mining industry has always been\na foreseeable possibility; our decision in the Environmental\nGroups’ previous mandamus action expressly recognized that\nthe EPA “retains ‘discretion to promulgate a rule or decline to\ndo so.’” In re Idaho Conservation League, 811 F.3d at 514\n(quoting Defs. of Wildlife, 714 at 1325 n.7).\n\n Kicking against the goads, the Environmental Groups\nmaintain that even if the EPA’s decision not to promulgate\nfinancial responsibility requirements for the hardrock mining\nindustry is a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule, its\nreasons for changing course are not. Specifically, the\nEnvironmental Groups urge that the Proposed Rule did not put\ninterested parties on notice that the EPA intended to embrace a\nnew construction of “risk” in § 9608(b) or to “dramatically\nnarrow[] the evidence it deemed relevant.” An agency’s\ndecision to withdraw a proposed rule ordinarily stems from a\nchanged view of the governing law or underlying facts. See,\ne.g., Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. at 163–\n65 (Labor Department decided not to adopt proposed rule\nbecause of changed interpretation of governing statute); Ariz.\nPub. Serv. Co. v. EPA, 211 F.3d 1280, 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2000)\n(EPA chose not to adopt proposed rule due to intervening issue\nregarding tribal immunity). Such a changed view does not\nalter whether an agency’s decision to withdraw a proposed rule\nis a logical outgrowth of the proposal. See, e.g., Long Island\nCare at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. at 175; Ariz. Pub. Serv.\n\f 22\nCo., 211 F.3d at 1299. The Proposed Rule contained the\nEPA’s preliminary interpretation of § 9608(b) and its\nunderstanding of the data regarding hazardous waste produced\nat hardrock mining sites. 82 Fed. Reg. at 3389, 3400. It\nadequately put interested parties on notice that the EPA was\nplanning regulatory action that might, as happened, not\nmaterialize.\n\n For the foregoing reasons, the Environmental Groups’\npetition is denied.\n\n So ordered.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE, Et Al., Petitioners v. Andrew WHEELER, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents Albemarle Corporation, Et Al., Intervenors\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-19\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued March 13, 2019 Decided July 19, 2019\\n\\n No. 18-1141\\n\\n IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE, ET AL.,\\n PETITIONERS\\n\\n v.\\n\\n ANDREW WHEELER, ADMINISTRATOR,\\n U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND\\n ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,\\n RESPONDENTS\\n\\n ALBEMARLE CORPORATION, ET AL.,\\n INTERVENORS\\n\\n\\n On Petition for Review of Final Action by\\n the United States Environmental Protection Agency\\n\\n\\n Amanda W. Goodin argued the cause for the petitioners.\\nJan E. Hasselman and Jaimini Parekh were with her on brief.\\nPatti A. Goldman entered an appearance.\\n\\n Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Assistant Attorney General, United\\nStates Department of Justice, argued the cause for the\\nrespondents. Jonathan Brightbill, Deputy Assistant Attorney\\nGeneral, and John E. Sullivan, Attorney, were with him on\\nbrief.\\n\\f 2\\n Brian T. Burgess argued the cause for the Industry\\nIntervenors. Michael S. Giannotto, Andrew Kim, Kevin P.\\nMartin, Keith Bradley, Carolyn L. McIntosh, Kevin A. Gaynor,\\nJeremy C. Marwell, Joshua S. Johnson, George A. Tsiolis,\\nChris S. Leason, Andrew E. Dudley, Thomas A. Lorenzen and\\nPreetha Chakrabarti were with him on brief.\\n\\n Mark Brnovich, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney\\nGeneral for the State of Arizona, Dominic E. Draye, Solicitor\\nGeneral at the time the brief was filed, Andrew G. Pappas and\\nKeith Miller, Associate Solicitors General, Leslie C. Rutledge,\\nAttorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State\\nof Arkansas, Nicholas J. Bronni, Solicitor General, Jeff\\nLandry, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for\\nthe State of Louisiana, Elizabeth B. Murrill, Solicitor General,\\nMichelle White, Assistant Attorney General, Timothy C. Fox,\\nAttorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State\\nof Montana, Dale Schowengerdt, Solicitor General, Jahna\\nLindemuth, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General\\nfor the State of Alaska, Ashley Brown, Assistant Attorney\\nGeneral, Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Office of the\\nAttorney General for the State of Colorado, Bill Schuette,\\nAttorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State\\nof Michigan, Matthias Sayer, Special Assistant Attorney\\nGeneral, Office of the Attorney General for the State of New\\nMexico, Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney\\nGeneral for the State of South Carolina, James Emory Smith,\\nJr., Deputy Solicitor General, Sean Reyes, Attorney General,\\nOffice of the Attorney General for the State of Utah, Tyler\\nGreen, Solicitor General, Lara Katz, Special Assistant\\nAttorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State\\nof New Mexico, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General, Office\\nof the Attorney General for the State of Nevada, Lawrence\\nVanDyke, Solicitor General, Marty J. Jackley, Attorney\\nGeneral, Office of the Attorney General for the State of South\\n\\f 3\\nDakota, Steven R. Blair, Assistant Attorney General, Erik E.\\nPetersen and Michael M. Robinson, Senior Assistant Attorneys\\nGeneral, Office of the Attorney General for the State of\\nWyoming, Brad D. Schimel, Attorney General at the time the\\nbrief was filed, Office of the Attorney General for the State of\\nWisconsin, Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General at the time the\\nbrief was filed, and Luke N. Berg, Deputy Solicitor General at\\nthe time the brief was filed, were on joint brief for State\\nIntervenors’ in support of the respondents. Lee P. Rudofsky,\\nSolicitor, and Jamie L. Ewing, Assistant Attorney General,\\nOffice of the Attorney General for the State of Arkansas,\\nOramel H. Skinner, III, Solicitor, Office of the Attorney\\nGeneral for the State of Arizona, and Steven C. Kilpatrick,\\nAssistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for\\nthe State of Wisconsin, entered appearances.\\n\\n Steven G. Barringer was on brief for the amici curiae\\nAlaska Miners Association, et al. in support of the respondents.\\n\\n Before: HENDERSON and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges, and\\nSENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.\\n\\n KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: In January\\n2017, acting pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental\\nResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42\\nU.S.C. § 9608(b), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)\\nproposed setting financial responsibility requirements for the\\nhardrock mining industry. Financial Responsibility\\nRequirements Under CERCLA § 108(b) for Classes of\\nFacilities in the Hardrock Mining Industry (Proposed Rule), 82\\nFed. Reg. 3388 (Jan. 11, 2017). Other federal agencies, state\\nagencies and industry representatives submitted comments\\nopposing the EPA’s proposal as unnecessary due to existing\\n\\f 4\\nfederal and state programs and modern mining practices. The\\nEPA ultimately agreed with the comments and announced in\\nFebruary 2018 that it decided not to issue financial\\nresponsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry.\\nFinancial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA\\nSection 108(b) for Classes of Facilities in the Hardrock Mining\\nIndustry (Final Action), 83 Fed. Reg. 7556, 7556 (Feb. 21,\\n2018). Following the EPA’s announcement, six\\nenvironmental organizations—the Idaho Conservation League,\\nEarthworks, Sierra Club, Amigos Bravos, Great Basin\\nResource Watch and Communities for a Better Environment\\n(collectively, “Environmental Groups”)—jointly petitioned for\\nreview of the EPA’s decision, arguing that it is contrary to\\nCERCLA, arbitrary and capricious and procedurally defective.\\nFor the reasons set forth infra, we deny the petition.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n The Congress enacted CERCLA as a “response to the\\nserious environmental and health risks posed by industrial\\npollution.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States,\\n556 U.S. 599, 602 (2009). CERCLA mitigates the harm\\ncaused by industrial pollution by “promot[ing] the ‘timely\\ncleanup of hazardous waste sites’” and by “ensur[ing] that the\\ncosts of such cleanup efforts [are] borne by those responsible\\nfor the contamination.” Id. (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v.\\nUGI Utils., Inc., 423 F.3d 90, 94 (2d Cir. 2005)). Specifically,\\nCERCLA provides the EPA with two mechanisms for doing\\nso. First, the EPA can take “response actions” to address past\\nor impending releases of hazardous substances. 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 9604. The EPA initially finances these response actions\\nwith CERCLA’s Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund),\\nid. § 9611, after which the EPA can initiate cost-recovery\\nactions against responsible parties, id. § 9607(a). Second, the\\nEPA can compel responsible parties, via administrative or\\n\\f 5\\ncourt order, to undertake and finance response actions directly.\\nId. § 9606(a).\\n\\n To ensure that responsible parties have the wherewithal\\neither to reimburse the Superfund or to finance their own\\nresponse actions, CERCLA mandates that the EPA require\\ncertain classes of facilities identified by the EPA to “establish\\nand maintain evidence of financial responsibility” by\\nobtaining, inter alia, insurance, surety bonds or letters of credit.\\nId. § 9608(b). 1 The financial responsibility requirements\\nmust be “consistent with the degree and duration of risk\\nassociated with the production, transportation, treatment,\\nstorage, or disposal of hazardous substances.” Id.\\n§ 9608(b)(1). Moreover, “[t]he level of financial\\nresponsibility shall be initially established, and, when\\nnecessary, adjusted to protect against the level of risk which the\\n[EPA] in [its] discretion believes is appropriate based on the\\npayment experience of the Fund, commercial insurers, court[]\\nsettlements and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction.”\\nId. § 9608(b)(2). CERCLA instructed the EPA to “identify\\nthose classes [of facilities] for which requirements will be first\\ndeveloped” by 1983, prioritizing “those classes of facilities,\\nowners, and operators which the [EPA] determines present the\\nhighest level of risk of injury.” Id. § 9608(b)(1).\\n\\n Twenty-six years after CERCLA’s mandated deadline, the\\nEPA finally announced in 2009, in response to litigation, its\\ndecision to prioritize financial responsibility requirements for\\nthe hardrock mining industry. Identification of Priority\\nClasses of Facilities for Development of CERCLA\\nSection 108(b) Financial Responsibility Requirements, 74 Fed.\\n\\n 1\\n CERCLA authorizes the President to issue financial\\nresponsibility requirements, 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b), and the President\\ndelegated his authority in relevant part to the EPA, Exec. Order No.\\n12,580, 3 C.F.R. 193, 194, 198 (1988).\\n\\f 6\\nReg. 37,213, 37,213 (July 28, 2009); see Sierra Club v.\\nJohnson, No. C 08-01409, 2009 WL 482248, at *10 (N.D. Cal.\\nFeb. 25, 2009). It did not act on its announcement, however,\\nuntil the Environmental Groups petitioned for a writ of\\nmandamus from this Court directing the EPA to issue financial\\nresponsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry\\namong others. See In re Idaho Conservation League, 811 F.3d\\n502, 506 (D.C. Cir. 2016). While the petition was pending,\\nthe parties agreed to a schedule requiring the EPA to issue a\\nproposed rule for the hardrock mining industry by December\\n1, 2016 and to take final action by December 1, 2017. Id. at\\n506–07. In approving the proposed schedule, this Court\\nemphasized that the EPA “retains ‘discretion to promulgate a\\nrule or decline to do so.’” Id. at 514 (quoting Defs. of Wildlife\\nv. Perciasepe, 714 F.3d 1317, 1325 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 2013)).\\n\\n The EPA published its Proposed Rule on January 11, 2017.\\n82 Fed. Reg. at 3388. In the Proposed Rule, the EPA reviewed\\nthree reports that examined past and present mining practices,\\nevidence of exposure to hazardous substances at mining sites\\nand releases at several recently or currently operating mines.\\nId. at 3471–75. Based on the reports, the EPA found\\n“abundant evidence that hardrock mining facilities continue to\\npose risks associated with the management of hazardous\\nsubstances at their sites,” id. at 3470, and accordingly proposed\\nissuing financial responsibility requirements for the industry,\\nid. at 3388.\\n\\n The United States Department of the Interior’s Bureau of\\nLand Management, the United States Forest Service, several\\nstate agencies and industry representatives submitted\\ncomments opposing the Proposed Rule. See Final Action, 83\\nFed. Reg. at 7560, 7566. The comments focused on two\\nalleged deficiencies in the Proposed Rule. First, the\\ncommenters argued that the Proposed Rule “[r]elied on\\n\\f 7\\ninappropriate evidence, such as data that did not demonstrate\\nrisk, and evidence not relevant to the facilities to be regulated\\nunder the rule.” Id. at 7560. Second, the commenters urged\\nthat the Proposed Rule “failed to consider relevant evidence,”\\nincluding “the role of federal and state mining programs and\\nvoluntary protective mining practices in reducing risks at\\ncurrent hardrock mining operations” as well as “the reduced\\ncosts to the taxpayer resulting from effective hardrock mining\\nprograms, including existing financial responsibility\\nrequirements, and owner or operator responses.” Id. (footnote\\nomitted).\\n\\n The EPA ultimately agreed with those opposed to the\\nProposed Rule and announced on February 21, 2018 that it had\\ndecided not to issue financial responsibility regulations for the\\nhardrock mining industry. Id. at 7556 (Final Action). In\\nparticular, the EPA found that existing federal and state\\nprograms as well as modern mining practices reduced the risk\\nthat the EPA would be required to use the Superfund to finance\\nresponse actions at currently active mines. Id. The EPA also\\nexplained in its Technical Support Document to the Final\\nAction why it no longer found persuasive many of the site-\\nspecific case studies contained in the reports relied upon in the\\nProposed Rule. Id. at 7581–83; CERCLA Section 108(b)\\nHardrock Mining Final Rule Technical Support Document\\n(TSD) 1–71. In particular, the EPA observed that (1) some of\\nthe sites discussed in the Proposed Rule operated before the\\ndevelopment of modern mining regulatory schemes, rendering\\ntheir “legacy contamination” irrelevant in determining modern\\nmining risks, (2) many of the sites were cleaned up without\\nSuperfund expenditures—through either funds from private\\nparties or preexisting financial responsibility obligations—and\\nthus were irrelevant in determining risks of taxpayer funded\\ncleanups and (3) spills at several of the sites occurred as a result\\nof problems since addressed by updated state regulations. See\\n\\f 8\\nid. at 5–6. The Environmental Groups timely petitioned for\\nreview. See 42 U.S.C. § 9613(a) (review must be sought\\n“within ninety days from the date of promulgation”).\\n\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n\\n We have jurisdiction to review regulations the EPA\\npromulgates under CERCLA. Id. Although it is debatable\\nwhether the EPA’s Final Action qualifies as a “regulation,” 2\\nwe have jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1651(a), to review the EPA’s “withdrawal of a proposed\\nrule . . . in order ‘to support [our] ultimate power of review.’”\\nInt’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. U.S. Dep’t of\\nLabor, 358 F.3d 40, 43 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (alteration in original)\\n(quoting Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d\\n70, 76 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). We may set aside the EPA’s Final\\nAction if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or\\notherwise not in accordance with law” or is “in excess of\\nstatutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of\\nstatutory right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C). We address in\\nturn the Environmental Groups’ arguments that the Final\\nAction rests on an incorrect interpretation of CERCLA, is\\n\\n 2\\n To assess whether agency action constitutes a “regulation,”\\nwe examine three factors: “(1) the Agency’s own characterization of\\nthe action; (2) whether the action was published in the Federal\\nRegister or the Code of Federal Regulations; and (3) whether the\\naction has binding effects on private parties or on the agency.”\\nMolycorp, Inc. v. EPA, 197 F.3d 543, 545–46 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The\\nfirst two factors indisputably cut in favor of finding the EPA’s Final\\nAction to be a regulation—the EPA characterized the Final Action\\nas a regulation and published it in the Federal Register, 83 Fed. Reg.\\nat 7556, 7557 n.8. It is unclear, however, whether the Final Action\\nbinds private parties or the Agency because it simply manifests the\\nEPA’s decision not to promulgate financial responsibility\\nrequirements for the hardrock mining industry.\\n\\f 9\\narbitrary and capricious based on the record and is not a logical\\noutgrowth of the Proposed Rule.\\n\\n A. Statutory Interpretation\\n\\n The Environmental Groups mount two statutory\\nchallenges. First, they claim that the EPA wrongly interpreted\\n“risk” in the operative provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b) as\\nlimited to the risk of taxpayer funded response actions.\\nSecond, they contend that, regardless of the meaning of “risk,”\\nCERCLA requires the EPA to promulgate some financial\\nresponsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry.\\nWe review the EPA’s interpretation of CERCLA under the\\nfamiliar Chevron two-step framework, deferring to the EPA’s\\ninterpretation if (1) the statutory text is ambiguous and (2) the\\nEPA’s interpretation of the text is reasonable. See Chevron,\\nU.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–\\n845 (1984).\\n\\n 1. § 9608(b) “Risk”\\n\\n CERCLA’s financial responsibility provision, 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 9068(b), includes three clauses that use “risk.” First, in the\\n“general mandate clause,” CERCLA obligates the EPA to\\nrequire certain classes of facilities to “establish and maintain\\nevidence of financial responsibility consistent with the degree\\nand duration of risk associated with the production,\\ntransportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous\\nsubstances.” 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b)(1) (emphasis added).\\nSecond, in the “prioritization clause,” CERCLA directs the\\nEPA to prioritize issuing financial responsibility requirements\\nfor “those classes of facilities, owners, and operators which the\\n[EPA] determines present the highest level of risk of injury.”\\nId. (emphasis added). Third, the “amount clause” instructs the\\nEPA to set financial responsibility requirements in the amount\\nnecessary “to protect against the level of risk which the [EPA]\\n\\f 10\\nin [its] discretion believes is appropriate based on the payment\\nexperience of the Fund, commercial insurers, court[]\\nsettlements and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction.”\\nId. § 9608(b)(2) (emphasis added).\\n\\n The parties agree that § 9608(b), by modifying “risk” with\\n“of injury” in the prioritization clause, requires the EPA to\\nconsider the risk of harm to human health and the environment\\nin deciding the classes of facilities for which it should prioritize\\nissuing financial responsibility requirements. The\\nEnvironmental Groups, however, fault the EPA for interpreting\\nthe general mandate and amount clauses as not requiring the\\nEPA to account for risks to human health and the environment\\nin deciding whether and to what extent to set financial\\nresponsibility requirements, instead requiring only that the\\nEPA consider financial risks, such as the “risk of taxpayer\\nfunded response actions.” Final Action, 83 Fed. Reg at 7556,\\n7567, 7568; accord id. at 7557, 7562 see also id. at 7558\\n(faulting Proposed Rule for considering “information unrelated\\nto risks of taxpayer financed costs posed by the current\\nfacilities to which the proposed rule would apply”). 3\\n\\n Whether the Congress intended “risk” in § 9608(b)’s\\ngeneral mandate and amount clauses to encompass risks to\\nhealth and the environment is ambiguous. Neither party\\ndisputes that the unmodified term “risk” is ambiguous. The\\nEnvironmental Groups, however, urge that, because the\\nCongress used the term “risk” in the prioritization clause and\\nother provisions of CERCLA to refer to health and\\nenvironmental harms, it must have intended to employ the\\nsame meaning in the general mandate and amount clauses.\\nThe Environmental Groups are correct that “[n]ormally, the\\n\\n 3\\n Although the EPA maintains that it considered human health\\nand environmental risks in its Final Action, see 83 Fed. Reg. at 7570–\\n81, its brief claims that CERCLA did not require it to do so.\\n\\f 11\\nsame word appearing in different portions of a single provision\\nor act is taken to have the same meaning in each appearance.”\\nWeaver v. U.S. Info. Agency, 87 F.3d 1429, 1437 (D.C. Cir.\\n1996). The general rule, however, “is defeasible”—that is,\\n“[i]dentical words may have different meanings where ‘the\\nsubject-matter to which the words refer is not the same in the\\nseveral places where they are used, or the conditions are\\ndifferent.’” Id. (quoting Atl. Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United\\nStates, 286 U.S. 427, 433 (1932)). The text of § 9608(b)\\nsuggests that the Congress may have intended “risk” to have\\ndifferent meanings in the three clauses. For example, the\\nCongress included the phrase “of injury” to modify “risk” in\\nthe prioritization clause but omitted it from the other two\\nclauses. See 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b). Indeed, the Congress used\\nonly financial terms to modify “risk” in the amount clause.\\nSee id. § 9608(b)(2) (considering “the payment experience of\\nthe Fund, commercial insurers, court[] settlements and\\njudgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction”). Thus, the\\ngeneral rule that terms carry the same meaning throughout a\\nstatutory provision may not be applicable to § 9608(b), making\\nthe meaning of “risk” in the general mandate and amount\\nclauses ambiguous. CERCLA’s general purpose provides no\\ngreater clarity. Although CERCLA’s primary purpose is to\\naddress health and environmental harms resulting from\\nindustrial pollution, Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 556\\nU.S. at 602, § 9608(b) may nonetheless also serve the narrower\\npurpose of ensuring that the EPA can recover the costs of\\ncleanup from responsible parties.\\n\\n We believe the EPA’s interpretation is reasonable. As\\nnoted, the Congress used only financial terms to describe the\\nrelevant “risk” in the amount clause. See 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 9608(b)(2). It is plausible, as the EPA contends, that the\\nCongress intended it to consider the same risks in deciding\\nwhether to issue any financial responsibility requirements\\n\\f 12\\nunder the general mandate clause. The structure of § 9608\\nsupports the EPA’s position. Section 9608(a), the immediate\\npredecessor provision, creates financial responsibility\\nrequirements for vessels to cover their liability to the EPA in\\nthe event of a Superfund-financed cost recovery action. Id.\\n§ 9608(a). Similarly, § 9608(c), the immediate successor\\nprovision, authorizes the EPA to recover cleanup costs by\\nasserting claims directly against the providers of financial\\nresponsibility instruments. Id. § 9608(c). Although not\\nunambiguous, § 9608(a) and § 9608(c) lend support to the\\nEPA’s reading that the financial responsibility requirements\\npromulgated under § 9608 relate only to ensuring against\\nfinancial risks associated with cleanup costs.\\n\\n Because § 9608(b)’s use of “risk” in the general mandate\\nand amount clauses is ambiguous and the EPA’s interpretation\\nis reasonable, we defer to the EPA’s interpretation that it\\nshould set financial responsibility regulations based on\\nfinancial risks, not risks to health and the environment.\\n\\n 2. EPA’s Decision Not to Regulate\\n\\n The Environmental Groups next argue that whatever\\ndiscretion § 9608(b) grants the EPA in setting the amount of\\nfinancial responsibility requirements, it does not include the\\ndecision not to promulgate financial responsibility\\nrequirements for the hardrock mining industry. The\\nEnvironmental Groups point to § 9608’s use of the obligatory\\n“shall” in instructing the EPA to promulgate financial\\nresponsibility requirements. See 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b)(1).\\n\\n The Environmental Groups overstate § 9608(b)’s\\nmandate. Although the provision directs that the EPA “shall”\\npromulgate financial responsibility requirements for certain\\n“classes of facilities,” the provision does not specify which\\nclasses of facilities. See id. The omission leaves discretion\\n\\f 13\\nin the EPA to determine the classes of facilities for which it\\nshould issue requirements. We said as much in the\\nEnvironmental Groups’ previous mandamus action when we\\nnoted that the EPA “retains ‘discretion to promulgate a rule or\\ndecline to do so’” and that the EPA’s decision to undertake a\\nrulemaking “neither resolves the substance of any rulemaking\\nnor even which classes of hardrock mining facilities will be\\nregulated.” In re Idaho Conservation League, 811 F.3d at 514\\n(quoting Defs. of Wildlife, 714 F.3d at 1325 n.7).\\n\\n Relatedly, the Environmental Groups argue that the EPA\\ncannot avoid promulgating financial responsibility\\nrequirements on the ground that requirements already\\nmandated under other federal and state regulations provide an\\nadequate guarantee of financial accountability. The\\nEnvironmental Groups assert that § 9608(b)(1) requires the\\nEPA to issue financial responsibility requirements “in addition\\nto” those required under other federal laws. See 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 9608(b)(1). The phrase “in addition to,” however, modifies\\nthe types of facilities to be regulated, not the extent of financial\\nresponsibility requirements—that is, the EPA may need to\\npromulgate financial responsibility requirements “for facilities\\nin addition to those” covered by other federal statutes, id.\\n(emphasis added), but the phrase does not place any obligation\\non the EPA to issue redundant financial responsibility\\nrequirements. Consequently, nothing in § 9608(b) mandates\\nthe EPA to promulgate financial responsibility requirements\\nfor the hardrock mining industry, authorizing the EPA to\\ndecline to do so.\\n\\n B. Arbitrary and Capricious Challenges\\n\\n The Environmental Groups next challenge as arbitrary and\\ncapricious the substance of the EPA’s decision not to issue\\nfinancial responsibility requirements for the hardrock mining\\n\\f 14\\nindustry. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). An agency acts\\narbitrarily or capriciously if it “has relied on factors which\\nCongress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to\\nconsider an important aspect of the problem, offered an\\nexplanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence\\nbefore the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be\\nascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency\\nexpertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut.\\nAuto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). In reviewing the\\nEPA’s decision, we may not substitute our judgment for that of\\nthe EPA. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe,\\n401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971).\\n\\n A major portion of the Environmental Groups’ arbitrary\\nand capricious challenge focuses on what they contend is the\\nEPA’s failure to account adequately for risks to health and the\\nenvironment in its Final Action. As discussed, supra Section\\nII.A.1, however, we defer to the EPA’s interpretation of\\nCERCLA that it need not consider risks to health and the\\nenvironment in deciding whether to issue financial\\nresponsibility requirements. Accordingly, the EPA’s alleged\\nfailure to consider health or environmental risks, if any, does\\nnot render its decision arbitrary or capricious.\\n\\n The Environmental Groups additionally argue that the\\nEPA arbitrarily and capriciously ignored certain financial risks\\nand that it supported its Final Action with a faulty economic\\nanalysis. We are unpersuaded.\\n\\n 1. Financial Risks\\n\\n The EPA explained why it concluded that existing federal\\nand state programs and modern mining practices have obviated\\nthe need for new financial responsibility requirements. It first\\nsummarized the extensive regulatory requirements other\\nfederal programs and the states have developed “over the past\\n\\f 15\\nseveral decades.” Final Action, 83 Fed. Reg. at 7571; see id.\\nat 7565–67, 7571–80. In particular, it conducted an in-depth\\nreview of the mining programs of Nevada, New Mexico,\\nAlaska, Colorado and Montana, which together include\\napproximately 35% of all hardrock mines. Id. at 7572–77.4\\nIn reviewing the state regimes, the EPA found that they have\\ncomprehensive regulations governing how mines handle\\nhazardous substances and include their own financial\\nresponsibility requirements. See id. Although the EPA\\nacknowledged that “the risk of a release is never totally\\neliminated,” it concluded that “substantial advances have been\\nmade in the development of mining practices and the\\nimplementation of federal and state regulatory programs to\\naddress releases at hardrock mining facilities.” Id. at 7580.\\nIndeed, the EPA found that, of the $12.9 billion spent in\\nresponse to releases at hardrock mining facilities, only $4\\nbillion came from the Superfund and that the “vast majority”\\nof that $4 billion targeted legacy contamination, not ongoing\\nreleases. Id. at 7567. Ultimately, the EPA recognized that\\nexisting federal and state programs have minimized the need\\nfor the EPA’s expenditures to respond to “CERCLA-like”\\nreleases and have “reduce[d] the risk of federally financed\\nresponse actions to a low level.” Id. at 7565–66. The\\nremaining “handful of examples of sites where EPA has\\nincurred response costs, notwithstanding regulation under . . .\\n\\n 4\\n The EPA also alluded to, but did not discuss, record evidence\\nregarding the “protectiveness” of the regulatory regimes of Arizona,\\nUtah, South Dakota and Idaho. Id. at 7572. And the EPA noted\\nthat the record included information about other states that further\\nsupported its conclusion that existing regulations minimized the need\\nfor new financial responsibility requirements. See id. at 7567 &\\nn.96, 7577 & n.277 (citing the National Mining Association’s\\ncomment and report on state regulatory regimes, including the\\nregimes of California, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon,\\nWashington and Wyoming); see also id. at 7572 & n.157.\\n\\f 16\\nstate and federal law,” the EPA concluded, are not “an\\nappropriate basis for regulation” under § 9608(b). Id. at 7567.\\n\\n The Environmental Groups nonetheless claim that the\\nEPA ignored several relevant financial risks. First, they assert\\nthat the EPA failed to analyze all of the financial factors listed\\nin § 9608(b)(2)’s amount clause. The amount clause requires\\nthe EPA to consider “the payment experience of the Fund,\\ncommercial insurers, court[] settlements and judgments, and\\nvoluntary claims satisfaction.” 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b)(2).\\nAccording to the Environmental Groups, the EPA myopically\\nfocused on the first of these financial factors—“the payment\\nexperience of the Fund”—without addressing the others. We\\nbelieve the Environmental Groups have misread the record and\\nthe EPA’s analysis. The EPA credited some commenters’\\nconcern that commercial insurers would be unwilling to\\nprovide financial responsibility instruments “for the amounts\\nproposed in the forms specified.” Final Action, 83 Fed. Reg.\\nat 7583. Moreover, the EPA also expressly considered\\n“payments made pursuant to settlements and voluntary\\nresponse actions.” Id. at 7568; see also id. at 7567–68 &\\nn.103 (discussing settlement data). It ultimately decided not\\nto issue financial responsibility requirements for the hardrock\\nmining industry in large part because many ongoing cleanup\\nsites are “being paid for by private parties and through existing\\nfinancial assurance requirements.” TSD 15. The EPA’s\\nanalysis of the record demonstrates that it considered all of the\\nfinancial factors enumerated in § 9608(b)(2)’s amount clause.\\n\\n Second, the Environmental Groups complain that the EPA\\nfailed to account for the cost of natural resource damage\\nresulting from hazardous substance spills at mining sites. As\\nan initial matter, this objection appears to be an attempt to\\nresuscitate the Environmental Groups’ arguments regarding\\nrisks to health and the environment—arguments foreclosed by\\n\\f 17\\nthe EPA’s reasonable interpretation of “risk” in § 9608(b), see\\nsupra Section II.A.1. Regardless, the EPA discussed the role\\nof natural resource damages in setting financial responsibility\\nrequirements. Final Action, 83 Fed. Reg. at 7567 n.99, 7569,\\n7584. It reasonably concluded that “modern regulation of\\nboth process discharges and runoff, as well as reclamation\\nrequirements to control sources of contamination, significantly\\naddress” hardrock mining’s “impacts to natural resources.”\\nId. at 7569. The EPA thus did not arbitrarily or capriciously\\nignore costs associated with natural resource damage.\\n\\n Third, the Environmental Groups contend that the EPA\\nfailed to consider that hardrock mining has a higher rate of\\nbankruptcy than most industries and therefore poses a higher\\nrisk that abandoned hazardous waste will require long-term\\nremediation efforts. The EPA, however, expressly considered\\nthe consequence of bankruptcies in its Final Action. It\\nrecounted that states have changed their financial responsibility\\nrequirements to account for the risk of bankruptcy and\\naccordingly determined that existing regulations sufficiently\\naccount for the risks of long-term remediation efforts. See\\nFinal Action, 83 Fed. Reg. at 7569, 7577, 7580. We believe\\nits analysis of the risk of bankruptcy was neither arbitrary nor\\ncapricious.\\n\\n As a last note, the Environmental Groups highlight several\\nmining sites for which they believe existing financial\\nresponsibility requirements are inadequate. Whatever the\\nmerits of the Environmental Groups’ concern regarding the\\nsites, it does not undermine the reasonableness of the EPA’s\\ndecision not to promulgate additional financial responsibility\\nrequirements for the entire hardrock mining industry. As\\nnoted, the EPA found that only a small fraction of Superfund\\nfunds spent on response actions at hardrock mining sites went\\nto address active spills at currently operating mines. Id. at\\n\\f 18\\n7567. We decline to substitute our judgment for the EPA’s on\\nthe question whether a handful of sites with likely minimal\\nimpact on the Superfund justifies industry-wide financial\\nresponsibility requirements. See id.; Citizens to Preserve\\nOverton Park, Inc., 401 U.S. at 416.\\n\\n 2. Economic Impact Analysis\\n\\n The Environmental Groups also argue that the EPA\\ngrounded its Final Action on arbitrary economic analysis.\\n“Notwithstanding the absence of a statutory duty, . . . when an\\nagency decides to rely on a cost-benefit analysis as part of its\\nrulemaking, a serious flaw undermining that analysis can\\nrender the rule unreasonable.” Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders\\nv. EPA, 682 F.3d 1032, 1039–40 (D.C. Cir. 2012). We\\n“review such a cost-benefit analysis deferentially.” Id. at\\n1040.\\n\\n We find no “serious flaw” in the Final Action’s economic\\nanalysis. There, the EPA explained that the Proposed Rule\\nwould have cost the hardrock mining industry $111 to $171\\nmillion per year “to procure third-party instruments.” 83 Fed.\\nReg. at 7585. But it also predicted that the Proposed Rule\\nwould have shifted only $15 to $15.5 million “in annual\\nliability from the federal government to the regulated\\nindustry.” Id. Although the EPA recognized that these two\\nsets of numbers are “not readily comparable,” it observed that\\n“the projected annualized costs to industry . . . are a magnitude\\nof order higher than the avoided costs to the government . . .\\nsought by the [Proposed Rule].” Id.\\n\\n The Environmental Groups challenge the EPA’s analysis\\nas inflating the costs of the Proposed Rule and ignoring its\\nhealth and environmental benefits. To start, the\\nEnvironmental Groups point out that most of the $111 to $171\\nmillion the hardrock mining industry would need to expend to\\n\\f 19\\ncomply with the Proposed Rule represents a transfer of money\\nfrom the mining industry to institutions providing financial\\nresponsibility instruments. Excluding the amount of the\\ntransfer, the Environmental Groups explain, would have\\nyielded a net societal cost of only $30 to $44 million, not $111\\nto $171 million. The EPA acknowledged as much. Final\\nAction, 83 Fed. Reg. at 7585 n.321. Importantly, the\\nEnvironmental Groups’ critique misses the point of the EPA’s\\nanalysis. The EPA expressly recognized that its estimates of\\n$111 to $171 million in costs to the hardrock mining industry\\nand $15 to $15.5 million in savings to the federal fisc are “not\\nreadily comparable.” Id. at 7585. Its acknowledgement\\ndemonstrates that the EPA did not intend to conduct a rigorous\\nsocietal cost-benefit analysis. Instead, the EPA compared in\\nbroad strokes the potential impact of the $111 to $171 million\\nannual bill on the hardrock mining industry—more mine\\nclosures and bankruptcies and stunted mining development due\\nto lost capital, id.—to the relatively small benefit to the federal\\nfisc. Such a general comparison is reasonable. Cf. Nat’l\\nWildlife Fed’n v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554, 563 (D.C. Cir. 2002)\\n(rejecting claim that “EPA’s economic analysis was inadequate\\nbecause it failed to give sufficient specifics to support the\\nreasonableness of its conclusions regarding economic impact”\\nand noting EPA’s “analysis may be general” so long as it\\nexplains its reasoning).\\n\\n The Environmental Groups also complain that the EPA\\nfailed to account for two benefits of the Proposed Rule’s\\nfinancial responsibility requirements—(1) greater incentive for\\nthe mining industry to follow best practices and (2) quicker\\nresponses to hazardous substance releases. As the EPA’s\\nanalysis elsewhere makes clear, existing federal and state\\nprograms impose significant financial responsibility\\nrequirements on the hardrock mining industry, id. at 7571–80,\\nand thereby already secure these benefits. The EPA therefore\\n\\f 20\\nneed not have considered these benefits as additional reasons\\nto adopt the Proposed Rule. Reviewing the EPA’s economic\\nanalysis deferentially, we conclude it is neither arbitrary nor\\ncapricious.\\n\\n C. Logical Outgrowth\\n\\n As a last resort, the Environmental Groups contend that we\\nshould vacate the Final Action because it is not a “logical\\noutgrowth” of the Proposed Rule. To satisfy the\\nAdministrative Procedure Act’s notice requirement, 5 U.S.C.\\n§ 553(b)(3), an agency’s final action must be a logical\\noutgrowth of its proposed rule. E.g., CSX Transp., Inc. v. STB,\\n584 F.3d 1076, 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “A final rule qualifies\\nas a logical outgrowth ‘if interested parties should have\\nanticipated that the change was possible, and thus reasonably\\nshould have filed their comments on the subject during the\\nnotice-and-comment period.’” Id. at 1079–80 (quoting Ne.\\nMd. Waste Disposal Auth. v. EPA, 358 F.3d 936, 952 (D.C. Cir.\\n2004) (per curiam)). On the other hand, a final rule is not a\\nlogical outgrowth if “interested parties would have had to\\ndivine [the agency’s] unspoken thoughts, because the final rule\\nwas surprisingly distant from the proposed rule.’” Id. at 1080\\n(alteration in original) (quoting Int’l Union, United Mine\\nWorkers of Am. v. MSHA, 407 F.3d 1250, 1259–60 (D.C. Cir.\\n2005)).\\n\\n Under Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, the EPA’s\\nFinal Action not to adopt financial responsibility requirements\\nfor the hardrock mining industry constitutes a logical\\noutgrowth of the Proposed Rule because “[o]ne logical\\noutgrowth of a proposal is surely . . . to refrain from taking the\\nproposed step,” New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 44 (D.C. Cir.\\n2005) (per curiam) (quoting Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 886\\nF.2d 390, 400 (D.C. Cir. 1989)); accord Long Island Care at\\n\\f 21\\nHome, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 175 (2007) (“Since the\\nproposed rule was simply a proposal, its presence meant that\\nthe Department was considering the matter; after that\\nconsideration the Department might choose to adopt the\\nproposal or to withdraw it. As it turned out, the Department\\ndid withdraw the proposal . . . . We do not understand why\\nsuch a possibility was not reasonably foreseeable.”). That the\\nEPA might choose not to promulgate financial responsibility\\nrequirements for the hardrock mining industry has always been\\na foreseeable possibility; our decision in the Environmental\\nGroups’ previous mandamus action expressly recognized that\\nthe EPA “retains ‘discretion to promulgate a rule or decline to\\ndo so.’” In re Idaho Conservation League, 811 F.3d at 514\\n(quoting Defs. of Wildlife, 714 at 1325 n.7).\\n\\n Kicking against the goads, the Environmental Groups\\nmaintain that even if the EPA’s decision not to promulgate\\nfinancial responsibility requirements for the hardrock mining\\nindustry is a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule, its\\nreasons for changing course are not. Specifically, the\\nEnvironmental Groups urge that the Proposed Rule did not put\\ninterested parties on notice that the EPA intended to embrace a\\nnew construction of “risk” in § 9608(b) or to “dramatically\\nnarrow[] the evidence it deemed relevant.” An agency’s\\ndecision to withdraw a proposed rule ordinarily stems from a\\nchanged view of the governing law or underlying facts. See,\\ne.g., Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. at 163–\\n65 (Labor Department decided not to adopt proposed rule\\nbecause of changed interpretation of governing statute); Ariz.\\nPub. Serv. Co. v. EPA, 211 F.3d 1280, 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2000)\\n(EPA chose not to adopt proposed rule due to intervening issue\\nregarding tribal immunity). Such a changed view does not\\nalter whether an agency’s decision to withdraw a proposed rule\\nis a logical outgrowth of the proposal. See, e.g., Long Island\\nCare at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. at 175; Ariz. Pub. Serv.\\n\\f 22\\nCo., 211 F.3d at 1299. The Proposed Rule contained the\\nEPA’s preliminary interpretation of § 9608(b) and its\\nunderstanding of the data regarding hazardous waste produced\\nat hardrock mining sites. 82 Fed. Reg. at 3389, 3400. It\\nadequately put interested parties on notice that the EPA was\\nplanning regulatory action that might, as happened, not\\nmaterialize.\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, the Environmental Groups’\\npetition is denied.\\n\\n So ordered.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3465,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4641198,"string":"4,641,198"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"D.C. ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Et Al., Appellants v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Et Al., Appellees"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"D.C. Ass'n of Chartered Pub. Sch. v. Dist. of Columbia"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-19"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-7155"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Henderson, Srinivasan, Millett\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SRINIVASAN\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued November 5, 2018 Decided July 19, 2019\\n\\n No. 17-7155\\n\\n D.C. ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ET AL.,\\n APPELLANTS\\n\\n v.\\n\\n DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL.,\\n APPELLEES\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the District of Columbia\\n (No. 1:14-cv-01293)\\n\\n\\n Kelly P. Dunbar argued the cause for appellants. With him\\non the brief were Carl J. Nichols and Thomas C. Kost.\\n\\n Jason Lederstein, Assistant Attorney General, Office of\\nthe Attorney General for the District of Columbia, argued the\\ncause for appellees. With him on the briefs were Karl A.\\nRacine, Attorney General, Loren L. AliKhan, Solicitor General,\\nand Caroline S. Van Zile, Deputy Solicitor General.\\n\\n John R. Hoellen and Lauren R.S. Mendonsa were on the\\nbrief for amicus curiae Council of the District of Columbia in\\nsupport of appellees.\\n\\f 2\\n Roger E. Warin, Osvaldo Vazquez, Marcus Gadson, and\\nJonathan Smith were on the brief for amici curiae Community\\nMembers and Organizations in support of defendants-\\nappellees.\\n\\n Before: HENDERSON, SRINIVASAN and MILLETT, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SRINIVASAN.\\n\\n SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judge: In 1996, Congress enacted\\nthe School Reform Act, which established parallel systems of\\ntraditional public schools and charter schools in the District of\\nColumbia. The Act requires the District to fund the operating\\nexpenses of public and charter schools on a uniform, per-\\nstudent basis. In this case, the D.C. Association of Chartered\\nPublic Schools contends that the District’s school funding\\npractices inadequately fund charter schools. The district court\\nrejected the Association’s claims. We conclude, though, that\\nthe district court lacked jurisdiction to hear this case.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n The Constitution’s District Clause grants Congress the\\npower “[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases\\nwhatsoever, over [the] District [of Columbia].” U.S. Const.\\nart. I, § 8, cl. 17. Pursuant to that Clause, Congress can\\ndelegate “legislative power” to the District. District of\\nColumbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 109 (1953).\\nCongress did so in the District of Columbia Self-Government\\nand Governmental Reorganization Act, Pub. L. No. 93-198, 87\\nStat. 774 (1973) (codified as amended at D.C. Code § 1-201.01\\net seq.)—also known as the Home Rule Act, or HRA—which\\nsought to “relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon\\nessentially local District matters,” id. § 102(a).\\n\\f 3\\n Congress, however, limited the District’s power to\\nlegislate in certain respects. Of most relevance for our\\npurposes, Congress barred the District from amending or\\nrepealing an Act of Congress that “is not restricted in its\\napplication exclusively in or to the District.” Id. § 602(a)(3).\\n\\n In 1996, Congress enacted the School Reform Act, Pub. L.\\nNo. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-107 (1996), which authorized the\\ncreation of charter schools in the District. The Act addresses\\nthe annual operating budgets for both traditional public schools\\nand charter schools. It provides that the District “shall\\nestablish . . . a formula to determine the amount of . . . the\\nannual payment to the Board of Education for the operating\\nexpenses of the District of Columbia public schools . . . [and]\\nthe annual payment to each public charter school for [its]\\noperating expenses.” Id. § 2401(b)(1). The “amount of the\\nannual payment” for each school “shall be calculated by\\nmultiplying a uniform dollar amount . . . [by] the number of\\nstudents” enrolled at the school. Id. § 2401(b)(2).\\n\\n The District’s uniform per-student funding level for both\\ntraditional public and charter schools is currently $10,658. See\\nD.C. Code § 38-2903. But the District allocates certain\\nadditional funding to traditional public schools above the per-\\npupil amount (including for maintenance of facilities and for\\nteacher pensions). The District also applies the per-pupil\\nformula to traditional public schools and charter schools in a\\nslightly different way: the District makes one annual payment\\nto traditional public schools based on the prior year’s\\nenrollment, see D.C. Code § 38-2906(a), whereas for charter\\nschools, the District makes quarterly payments that can be\\nadjusted during the year if the actual enrollment turns out to\\ndiffer from projected enrollment, id. § 38-2906.02(b)–(c).\\n\\f 4\\n The D.C. Association of Chartered Public Schools brought\\nsuit challenging the District’s funding practices. The\\nAssociation contends that the District underfunds charter\\nschools relative to traditional public schools, in violation of the\\nSchool Reform Act, the Home Rule Act, and the Constitution.\\nThe district court ruled for the District on all counts, and the\\nAssociation now appeals.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n We do not reach the merits of the Association’s claims\\nbecause we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction\\nover them. The Association contends that its claims under the\\nSchool Reform Act, Home Rule Act, and Constitution fall\\nwithin the district court’s original jurisdiction over claims\\narising under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. None of those\\nclaims, however, arises under federal law within the meaning\\nof the federal-question statute. We thus vacate the district\\ncourt’s judgment and remand for dismissal of the complaint for\\nwant of jurisdiction.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n We first consider whether the district court had jurisdiction\\nover the Association’s claim under the School Reform Act. For\\npurposes of our analysis, we assume that Act furnishes a cause\\nof action. The District makes no argument to the contrary, and\\nin general, “the absence of a valid (as opposed to arguable)\\ncause of action does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction.”\\nSteel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998).\\n\\n Under the federal-question statute, the “district courts shall\\nhave original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the\\nConstitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1331. For purposes of that provision, “a case can arise under\\n\\f 5\\nfederal law in two ways.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 257\\n(2013) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).\\n\\n “Most directly, a case arises under federal law when\\nfederal law creates the cause of action asserted.” Id.; see Am.\\nWell Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260\\n(1916). That test “accounts for the vast bulk of suits that arise\\nunder federal law.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 257.\\n\\n A claim under the School Reform Act cannot qualify for\\nfederal-question jurisdiction under that test. That is because\\nthe School Reform Act is not a “law of the United States”\\nwithin the meaning of § 1331. Another provision, 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1366, prescribes that, “[f]or the purposes of [§ 1331],\\nreferences to laws of the United States . . . do not include laws\\napplicable exclusively to the District of Columbia.” The\\nSchool Reform Act is such a law: it applies solely to the\\nDistrict, establishing and regulating charter schools within the\\nDistrict alone. Section 1366 then denies the School Reform\\nAct the status of a “law of the United States” for purposes of\\nthe federal-question statute.\\n\\n The Association does not dispute that conclusion. Instead,\\nthe Association relies on the second way in which an action\\narises under federal law for purposes of federal-question\\njurisdiction, which applies even though the cause of action is\\ncreated by state law rather than federal law. In that “slim\\ncategory” of cases, “federal jurisdiction over a state law claim\\nwill lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually\\ndisputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in\\nfederal court without disrupting the federal-state balance\\napproved by Congress.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258. That test is\\nnot met here.\\n\\n The Association identifies no federal question “necessarily\\nraised” by its claim under the School Reform Act. The\\n\\f 6\\nAssociation submits that its claim raises a federal question—\\ni.e., “whether the District may amend or repeal” the School\\nReform Act pursuant to its authority under the Home Rule Act.\\nAssociation Supp. Br. 7; see HRA § 602(a)(3). But that\\nquestion, even assuming it is federal in character, is not an\\n“essential element” of a School Reform Act claim, as would be\\nnecessary for the claim to support federal-question jurisdiction.\\nGrable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545\\nU.S. 308, 315 (2005). The Association raises that question, not\\nas an essential part of its affirmative claim, but instead in\\nresponse to an anticipated defense—namely, the District’s\\ndefense that, even if its actions conflict with the School Reform\\nAct, it can amend or repeal that Act pursuant to its authority\\nunder the Home Rule Act. And it is black-letter law that an\\nanticipated federal defense does not substantiate federal-\\nquestion jurisdiction. See Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v.\\nMottley, 211 U.S. 149, 153 (1908). The Association thus errs\\nin arguing that its School Reform Act claim arises under federal\\nlaw even if the cause of action is nonfederal.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Next, the Association relies on its claim under the Home\\nRule Act. Again, we assume, without deciding, that the Act\\nfurnishes a cause of action. See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 89. The\\ngravamen of the Association’s claim is that the District’s\\nalleged contravention of the School Reform Act amounts to a\\nviolation of the Home Rule Act. That claim does not arise\\nunder federal law within the meaning of the federal-question\\nstatute.\\n\\n The Home Rule Act is a “hybrid statute,” Thomas v. Barry,\\n729 F.2d 1469, 1471 (D.C. Cir. 1984), in that while certain of\\nits provisions apply “exclusively to the District of Columbia,”\\n28 U.S.C. § 1366, others do not. In order to determine whether\\n\\f 7\\na particular claim asserted under the Act falls within federal-\\nquestion jurisdiction, we must assess whether the specific\\nprovision at issue is federal or local in character. That analysis\\nturns on whether the provision can be “equated” with laws\\n“enacted by state and local governments having plenary power\\nto legislate for the general welfare of their citizens.” Thomas,\\n729 F.2d at 1471 (quoting Key v. Doyle, 434 U.S. 59, 68 n.13\\n(1977)).\\n\\n For example, in Thomas, we examined a claim raised\\nunder section 204 of the Home Rule Act, which “transfers\\ncertain functions away from the Secretary of Labor” and\\nabolishes another federal “position entirely within the federal\\nsystem.” Id. We concluded that section 204 is federal in\\ncharacter because a “state or local statute” could not “direct the\\nfederal government to affect transfers or to abolish positions\\naltering its structure.” Id.\\n\\n Here, the pertinent provisions of the Home Rule Act are\\nsections 602(a)(3) and 717(b). Section 602(a)(3) provides that\\nthe D.C. Council “shall have no authority to . . . enact any act\\nto amend or repeal any Act of Congress . . . which is not\\nrestricted in its application exclusively in or to the District.”\\nHRA § 602(a)(3) (codified at D.C. Code § 1-206.02(a)(3)).\\nSection 717(b) provides in pertinent part that “[n]o law or\\nregulation which is in force on” the Home Rule Act’s effective\\ndate (January 2, 1975) “shall be deemed amended or repealed\\nby this Act . . . but any such law or regulation may be amended\\nor repealed by act or resolution as authorized in this Act.” HRA\\n§ 717(b) (codified at D.C. Code § 1-207.17(b)).\\n\\n The Association argues that those provisions are federal in\\ncharacter. That proposition cannot be squared with our\\ndecision in Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179 (D.C.\\nCir. 1986). There, we considered the existence of federal-\\n\\f 8\\nquestion jurisdiction over claims brought under two provisions\\nof the Home Rule Act. One limits the District’s authority to\\n“[e]nact any act, resolution, or rule . . . (relating to organization\\nand jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts).” HRA\\n§ 602(a)(4) (codified at D.C. Code § 1-206.02(a)(4)). The\\nother limits the District’s authority to “[e]nact any act or\\nregulation relating to the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Columbia.” HRA § 602(a)(8) (codified at D.C.\\nCode § 1-206.02(a)(8)). We concluded that § 1366 excluded\\nboth provisions from the body of federal law because they both\\n“would appear to apply exclusively to the District.” Dimond,\\n792 F.2d at 188.\\n\\n That logic equally applies here. In particular, the\\nprovisions of the Home Rule Act at issue in this case resemble\\nthe provisions we considered in Dimond in relevant respects.\\nLike those provisions, § 602(a)(3) imposes a constraint only on\\nthe District’s power to legislate, and its effect does not go\\nbeyond the compass of the District. It can thus be “equated”\\nwith local law, such that it falls outside the body of federal law\\nby operation of § 1366. Thomas, 729 F.2d at 1471. So too for\\n§ 717(b), which merely announces a default rule with respect\\nto laws in place on the effective date of the Home Rule Act.\\nThat provision clarifies that laws in effect on that date remain\\nin place but are subject to repeal by the District. Section\\n717(b)’s effect is confined exclusively to the District, and the\\nprovision is thus excluded from federal law by § 1366.\\n\\n The Association disputes that understanding of § 717(b).\\nIt reads the provision to “grant[], but then delimit[], the\\nDistrict’s authority to amend congressional enactments.”\\nAssociation Supp. Br. 6. Even so, such a limitation on\\nlegislative authority would apply exclusively to the District.\\nThe provision thus would remain indistinguishable in character\\nfrom sections 602(a)(4) and 602(a)(8) of the Act, the provisions\\n\\f 9\\nwe considered in Dimond, 792 F.2d at 188. It follows that the\\nAssociation’s claim under the Home Rule Act, like its claim\\nunder the School Reform Act, cannot establish federal-question\\njurisdiction.\\n\\n C.\\n\\n We turn last to the Association’s claim that the School\\nReform Act preempts contrary District law, including the\\nschool-funding provisions of the D.C. Code at issue. The\\nAssociation argues that a preemption-based action of that kind\\narises under federal law for purposes of federal-question\\njurisdiction. We disagree.\\n\\n In its complaint, the Association styled its preemption\\nclaim as arising under both the District Clause and the\\nSupremacy Clause. See Complaint ¶ 79–89, J.A. 34–38. In its\\nbriefing before our court, the Association relies exclusively on\\nthe District Clause. See Association Supp. Br. 2–5. In either\\nevent, the claim does not support federal-question jurisdiction.\\n\\n Under the general test for federal-question jurisdiction, a\\nclaim “arises under” federal law only if federal law creates the\\nasserted cause of action. See Gunn, 568 U.S. at 257; Am. Well\\nWorks Co., 241 U.S. at 260. And for preemption-like claims,\\nthe District Clause—like the Supremacy Clause—“certainly\\ndoes not create a cause of action.” Armstrong v. Exceptional\\nChild Ctr., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1378, 1383 (2015). Rather, the\\nDistrict Clause, like the Supremacy Clause, “is silent regarding\\nwho may enforce federal laws in court, and in what\\ncircumstances they may do so.” Id. Neither the District Clause\\nnor the Supremacy Clause then directly furnishes the\\nAssociation with a cause of action.\\n\\n Still, the Association correctly observes that “[s]uits to\\nenjoin official conduct that conflicts with the federal\\n\\f 10\\nConstitution are common.” Association Supp. Br. 2. Indeed,\\na cause of action routinely exists for such claims. See, e.g.,\\nVerizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635,\\n642 (2002); Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96\\n(1983); see also Richard H. Fallon, Jr. et al., Hart & Wechsler’s\\nThe Federal Courts and the Federal System 844–45 (7th ed.\\n2015). But the cause of action for such claims does not arise\\nunder the Constitution itself. Rather, it exists as “the creation\\nof courts of equity.” Armstrong, 135 S. Ct. at 1384. In other\\nwords, the Association’s putative cause of action for its\\npreemption-based claim would arise under federal common\\nlaw. See id. We assume the existence of such a common-law\\naction here (although we note that an action “to enjoin unlawful\\nexecutive action is subject to express and implied statutory\\nlimitations,” Armstrong, 135 S. Ct. at 1385, and we have no\\noccasion to consider whether any such limitations would\\npreclude recognizing a cause of action in this case).\\n\\n While claims arising under federal common law typically\\nfall within federal-question jurisdiction, see Illinois v. City of\\nMilwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 100 (1972), here, § 1366 forecloses\\nfederal jurisdiction. Under that statute, as we have seen,\\nfederal-question jurisdiction excludes claims whose cause of\\naction arises under “laws applicable exclusively to the District\\nof Columbia.” Because the School Reform Act applies solely\\nto the District, a common-law cause of action to guard against\\n“illegal executive action” in violation of that Act, Armstrong,\\n135 S. Ct. at 1384, would have no broader application than the\\nAct itself. Such an action would apply exclusively to the\\nDistrict, such that it would fall outside of federal-question\\njurisdiction by operation of § 1366.\\n\\n If it were otherwise, a litigant bringing a claim barred from\\nfederal court by § 1366 could nonetheless gain access to a\\nfederal forum merely by restyling her claim as a “preemption”\\n\\f 11\\none to enforce an ostensibly supreme federal law. Such a\\nregime would make little sense. Rather, the Supreme Court has\\nestablished that, even for preemption claims, the availability of\\nfederal-question jurisdiction hinges on Congress’s “intent to\\nwithdraw federal jurisdiction under § 1331.” Verizon, 535 U.S.\\nat 644. Section 1366 speaks directly to that intent in the\\ncircumstances of this case. We thus conclude that the district\\ncourt lacked jurisdiction over any common-law cause of action\\nto enforce the School Reform Act.\\n\\n * * * * *\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of the\\ndistrict court and remand with instructions to dismiss the\\ncomplaint for want of jurisdiction.\\n\\n So ordered.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4418451/\", \"author_raw\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SRINIVASAN\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"HENDERSON"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SRINIVASAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"MILLETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641198/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: D.C. ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Et Al., Appellants v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Et Al., Appellees\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-19\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued November 5, 2018 Decided July 19, 2019\n\n No. 17-7155\n\n D.C. ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ET AL.,\n APPELLANTS\n\n v.\n\n DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL.,\n APPELLEES\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the District of Columbia\n (No. 1:14-cv-01293)\n\n\n Kelly P. Dunbar argued the cause for appellants. With him\non the brief were Carl J. Nichols and Thomas C. Kost.\n\n Jason Lederstein, Assistant Attorney General, Office of\nthe Attorney General for the District of Columbia, argued the\ncause for appellees. With him on the briefs were Karl A.\nRacine, Attorney General, Loren L. AliKhan, Solicitor General,\nand Caroline S. Van Zile, Deputy Solicitor General.\n\n John R. Hoellen and Lauren R.S. Mendonsa were on the\nbrief for amicus curiae Council of the District of Columbia in\nsupport of appellees.\n\f 2\n Roger E. Warin, Osvaldo Vazquez, Marcus Gadson, and\nJonathan Smith were on the brief for amici curiae Community\nMembers and Organizations in support of defendants-\nappellees.\n\n Before: HENDERSON, SRINIVASAN and MILLETT, Circuit\nJudges.\n\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SRINIVASAN.\n\n SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judge: In 1996, Congress enacted\nthe School Reform Act, which established parallel systems of\ntraditional public schools and charter schools in the District of\nColumbia. The Act requires the District to fund the operating\nexpenses of public and charter schools on a uniform, per-\nstudent basis. In this case, the D.C. Association of Chartered\nPublic Schools contends that the District’s school funding\npractices inadequately fund charter schools. The district court\nrejected the Association’s claims. We conclude, though, that\nthe district court lacked jurisdiction to hear this case.\n\n I.\n\n The Constitution’s District Clause grants Congress the\npower “[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases\nwhatsoever, over [the] District [of Columbia].” U.S. Const.\nart. I, § 8, cl. 17. Pursuant to that Clause, Congress can\ndelegate “legislative power” to the District. District of\nColumbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 109 (1953).\nCongress did so in the District of Columbia Self-Government\nand Governmental Reorganization Act, Pub. L. No. 93-198, 87\nStat. 774 (1973) (codified as amended at D.C. Code § 1-201.01\net seq.)—also known as the Home Rule Act, or HRA—which\nsought to “relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon\nessentially local District matters,” id. § 102(a).\n\f 3\n Congress, however, limited the District’s power to\nlegislate in certain respects. Of most relevance for our\npurposes, Congress barred the District from amending or\nrepealing an Act of Congress that “is not restricted in its\napplication exclusively in or to the District.” Id. § 602(a)(3).\n\n In 1996, Congress enacted the School Reform Act, Pub. L.\nNo. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-107 (1996), which authorized the\ncreation of charter schools in the District. The Act addresses\nthe annual operating budgets for both traditional public schools\nand charter schools. It provides that the District “shall\nestablish . . . a formula to determine the amount of . . . the\nannual payment to the Board of Education for the operating\nexpenses of the District of Columbia public schools . . . [and]\nthe annual payment to each public charter school for [its]\noperating expenses.” Id. § 2401(b)(1). The “amount of the\nannual payment” for each school “shall be calculated by\nmultiplying a uniform dollar amount . . . [by] the number of\nstudents” enrolled at the school. Id. § 2401(b)(2).\n\n The District’s uniform per-student funding level for both\ntraditional public and charter schools is currently $10,658. See\nD.C. Code § 38-2903. But the District allocates certain\nadditional funding to traditional public schools above the per-\npupil amount (including for maintenance of facilities and for\nteacher pensions). The District also applies the per-pupil\nformula to traditional public schools and charter schools in a\nslightly different way: the District makes one annual payment\nto traditional public schools based on the prior year’s\nenrollment, see D.C. Code § 38-2906(a), whereas for charter\nschools, the District makes quarterly payments that can be\nadjusted during the year if the actual enrollment turns out to\ndiffer from projected enrollment, id. § 38-2906.02(b)–(c).\n\f 4\n The D.C. Association of Chartered Public Schools brought\nsuit challenging the District’s funding practices. The\nAssociation contends that the District underfunds charter\nschools relative to traditional public schools, in violation of the\nSchool Reform Act, the Home Rule Act, and the Constitution.\nThe district court ruled for the District on all counts, and the\nAssociation now appeals.\n\n II.\n\n We do not reach the merits of the Association’s claims\nbecause we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction\nover them. The Association contends that its claims under the\nSchool Reform Act, Home Rule Act, and Constitution fall\nwithin the district court’s original jurisdiction over claims\narising under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. None of those\nclaims, however, arises under federal law within the meaning\nof the federal-question statute. We thus vacate the district\ncourt’s judgment and remand for dismissal of the complaint for\nwant of jurisdiction.\n\n A.\n\n We first consider whether the district court had jurisdiction\nover the Association’s claim under the School Reform Act. For\npurposes of our analysis, we assume that Act furnishes a cause\nof action. The District makes no argument to the contrary, and\nin general, “the absence of a valid (as opposed to arguable)\ncause of action does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction.”\nSteel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998).\n\n Under the federal-question statute, the “district courts shall\nhave original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the\nConstitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.\n§ 1331. For purposes of that provision, “a case can arise under\n\f 5\nfederal law in two ways.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 257\n(2013) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).\n\n “Most directly, a case arises under federal law when\nfederal law creates the cause of action asserted.” Id.; see Am.\nWell Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260\n(1916). That test “accounts for the vast bulk of suits that arise\nunder federal law.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 257.\n\n A claim under the School Reform Act cannot qualify for\nfederal-question jurisdiction under that test. That is because\nthe School Reform Act is not a “law of the United States”\nwithin the meaning of § 1331. Another provision, 28 U.S.C.\n§ 1366, prescribes that, “[f]or the purposes of [§ 1331],\nreferences to laws of the United States . . . do not include laws\napplicable exclusively to the District of Columbia.” The\nSchool Reform Act is such a law: it applies solely to the\nDistrict, establishing and regulating charter schools within the\nDistrict alone. Section 1366 then denies the School Reform\nAct the status of a “law of the United States” for purposes of\nthe federal-question statute.\n\n The Association does not dispute that conclusion. Instead,\nthe Association relies on the second way in which an action\narises under federal law for purposes of federal-question\njurisdiction, which applies even though the cause of action is\ncreated by state law rather than federal law. In that “slim\ncategory” of cases, “federal jurisdiction over a state law claim\nwill lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually\ndisputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in\nfederal court without disrupting the federal-state balance\napproved by Congress.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258. That test is\nnot met here.\n\n The Association identifies no federal question “necessarily\nraised” by its claim under the School Reform Act. The\n\f 6\nAssociation submits that its claim raises a federal question—\ni.e., “whether the District may amend or repeal” the School\nReform Act pursuant to its authority under the Home Rule Act.\nAssociation Supp. Br. 7; see HRA § 602(a)(3). But that\nquestion, even assuming it is federal in character, is not an\n“essential element” of a School Reform Act claim, as would be\nnecessary for the claim to support federal-question jurisdiction.\nGrable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545\nU.S. 308, 315 (2005). The Association raises that question, not\nas an essential part of its affirmative claim, but instead in\nresponse to an anticipated defense—namely, the District’s\ndefense that, even if its actions conflict with the School Reform\nAct, it can amend or repeal that Act pursuant to its authority\nunder the Home Rule Act. And it is black-letter law that an\nanticipated federal defense does not substantiate federal-\nquestion jurisdiction. See Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v.\nMottley, 211 U.S. 149, 153 (1908). The Association thus errs\nin arguing that its School Reform Act claim arises under federal\nlaw even if the cause of action is nonfederal.\n\n B.\n\n Next, the Association relies on its claim under the Home\nRule Act. Again, we assume, without deciding, that the Act\nfurnishes a cause of action. See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 89. The\ngravamen of the Association’s claim is that the District’s\nalleged contravention of the School Reform Act amounts to a\nviolation of the Home Rule Act. That claim does not arise\nunder federal law within the meaning of the federal-question\nstatute.\n\n The Home Rule Act is a “hybrid statute,” Thomas v. Barry,\n729 F.2d 1469, 1471 (D.C. Cir. 1984), in that while certain of\nits provisions apply “exclusively to the District of Columbia,”\n28 U.S.C. § 1366, others do not. In order to determine whether\n\f 7\na particular claim asserted under the Act falls within federal-\nquestion jurisdiction, we must assess whether the specific\nprovision at issue is federal or local in character. That analysis\nturns on whether the provision can be “equated” with laws\n“enacted by state and local governments having plenary power\nto legislate for the general welfare of their citizens.” Thomas,\n729 F.2d at 1471 (quoting Key v. Doyle, 434 U.S. 59, 68 n.13\n(1977)).\n\n For example, in Thomas, we examined a claim raised\nunder section 204 of the Home Rule Act, which “transfers\ncertain functions away from the Secretary of Labor” and\nabolishes another federal “position entirely within the federal\nsystem.” Id. We concluded that section 204 is federal in\ncharacter because a “state or local statute” could not “direct the\nfederal government to affect transfers or to abolish positions\naltering its structure.” Id.\n\n Here, the pertinent provisions of the Home Rule Act are\nsections 602(a)(3) and 717(b). Section 602(a)(3) provides that\nthe D.C. Council “shall have no authority to . . . enact any act\nto amend or repeal any Act of Congress . . . which is not\nrestricted in its application exclusively in or to the District.”\nHRA § 602(a)(3) (codified at D.C. Code § 1-206.02(a)(3)).\nSection 717(b) provides in pertinent part that “[n]o law or\nregulation which is in force on” the Home Rule Act’s effective\ndate (January 2, 1975) “shall be deemed amended or repealed\nby this Act . . . but any such law or regulation may be amended\nor repealed by act or resolution as authorized in this Act.” HRA\n§ 717(b) (codified at D.C. Code § 1-207.17(b)).\n\n The Association argues that those provisions are federal in\ncharacter. That proposition cannot be squared with our\ndecision in Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179 (D.C.\nCir. 1986). There, we considered the existence of federal-\n\f 8\nquestion jurisdiction over claims brought under two provisions\nof the Home Rule Act. One limits the District’s authority to\n“[e]nact any act, resolution, or rule . . . (relating to organization\nand jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts).” HRA\n§ 602(a)(4) (codified at D.C. Code § 1-206.02(a)(4)). The\nother limits the District’s authority to “[e]nact any act or\nregulation relating to the United States District Court for the\nDistrict of Columbia.” HRA § 602(a)(8) (codified at D.C.\nCode § 1-206.02(a)(8)). We concluded that § 1366 excluded\nboth provisions from the body of federal law because they both\n“would appear to apply exclusively to the District.” Dimond,\n792 F.2d at 188.\n\n That logic equally applies here. In particular, the\nprovisions of the Home Rule Act at issue in this case resemble\nthe provisions we considered in Dimond in relevant respects.\nLike those provisions, § 602(a)(3) imposes a constraint only on\nthe District’s power to legislate, and its effect does not go\nbeyond the compass of the District. It can thus be “equated”\nwith local law, such that it falls outside the body of federal law\nby operation of § 1366. Thomas, 729 F.2d at 1471. So too for\n§ 717(b), which merely announces a default rule with respect\nto laws in place on the effective date of the Home Rule Act.\nThat provision clarifies that laws in effect on that date remain\nin place but are subject to repeal by the District. Section\n717(b)’s effect is confined exclusively to the District, and the\nprovision is thus excluded from federal law by § 1366.\n\n The Association disputes that understanding of § 717(b).\nIt reads the provision to “grant[], but then delimit[], the\nDistrict’s authority to amend congressional enactments.”\nAssociation Supp. Br. 6. Even so, such a limitation on\nlegislative authority would apply exclusively to the District.\nThe provision thus would remain indistinguishable in character\nfrom sections 602(a)(4) and 602(a)(8) of the Act, the provisions\n\f 9\nwe considered in Dimond, 792 F.2d at 188. It follows that the\nAssociation’s claim under the Home Rule Act, like its claim\nunder the School Reform Act, cannot establish federal-question\njurisdiction.\n\n C.\n\n We turn last to the Association’s claim that the School\nReform Act preempts contrary District law, including the\nschool-funding provisions of the D.C. Code at issue. The\nAssociation argues that a preemption-based action of that kind\narises under federal law for purposes of federal-question\njurisdiction. We disagree.\n\n In its complaint, the Association styled its preemption\nclaim as arising under both the District Clause and the\nSupremacy Clause. See Complaint ¶ 79–89, J.A. 34–38. In its\nbriefing before our court, the Association relies exclusively on\nthe District Clause. See Association Supp. Br. 2–5. In either\nevent, the claim does not support federal-question jurisdiction.\n\n Under the general test for federal-question jurisdiction, a\nclaim “arises under” federal law only if federal law creates the\nasserted cause of action. See Gunn, 568 U.S. at 257; Am. Well\nWorks Co., 241 U.S. at 260. And for preemption-like claims,\nthe District Clause—like the Supremacy Clause—“certainly\ndoes not create a cause of action.” Armstrong v. Exceptional\nChild Ctr., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1378, 1383 (2015). Rather, the\nDistrict Clause, like the Supremacy Clause, “is silent regarding\nwho may enforce federal laws in court, and in what\ncircumstances they may do so.” Id. Neither the District Clause\nnor the Supremacy Clause then directly furnishes the\nAssociation with a cause of action.\n\n Still, the Association correctly observes that “[s]uits to\nenjoin official conduct that conflicts with the federal\n\f 10\nConstitution are common.” Association Supp. Br. 2. Indeed,\na cause of action routinely exists for such claims. See, e.g.,\nVerizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635,\n642 (2002); Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96\n(1983); see also Richard H. Fallon, Jr. et al., Hart & Wechsler’s\nThe Federal Courts and the Federal System 844–45 (7th ed.\n2015). But the cause of action for such claims does not arise\nunder the Constitution itself. Rather, it exists as “the creation\nof courts of equity.” Armstrong, 135 S. Ct. at 1384. In other\nwords, the Association’s putative cause of action for its\npreemption-based claim would arise under federal common\nlaw. See id. We assume the existence of such a common-law\naction here (although we note that an action “to enjoin unlawful\nexecutive action is subject to express and implied statutory\nlimitations,” Armstrong, 135 S. Ct. at 1385, and we have no\noccasion to consider whether any such limitations would\npreclude recognizing a cause of action in this case).\n\n While claims arising under federal common law typically\nfall within federal-question jurisdiction, see Illinois v. City of\nMilwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 100 (1972), here, § 1366 forecloses\nfederal jurisdiction. Under that statute, as we have seen,\nfederal-question jurisdiction excludes claims whose cause of\naction arises under “laws applicable exclusively to the District\nof Columbia.” Because the School Reform Act applies solely\nto the District, a common-law cause of action to guard against\n“illegal executive action” in violation of that Act, Armstrong,\n135 S. Ct. at 1384, would have no broader application than the\nAct itself. Such an action would apply exclusively to the\nDistrict, such that it would fall outside of federal-question\njurisdiction by operation of § 1366.\n\n If it were otherwise, a litigant bringing a claim barred from\nfederal court by § 1366 could nonetheless gain access to a\nfederal forum merely by restyling her claim as a “preemption”\n\f 11\none to enforce an ostensibly supreme federal law. Such a\nregime would make little sense. Rather, the Supreme Court has\nestablished that, even for preemption claims, the availability of\nfederal-question jurisdiction hinges on Congress’s “intent to\nwithdraw federal jurisdiction under § 1331.” Verizon, 535 U.S.\nat 644. Section 1366 speaks directly to that intent in the\ncircumstances of this case. We thus conclude that the district\ncourt lacked jurisdiction over any common-law cause of action\nto enforce the School Reform Act.\n\n * * * * *\n\n For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of the\ndistrict court and remand with instructions to dismiss the\ncomplaint for want of jurisdiction.\n\n So ordered.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: D.C. ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Et Al., Appellants v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Et Al., Appellees\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-19\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued November 5, 2018 Decided July 19, 2019\\n\\n No. 17-7155\\n\\n D.C. ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ET AL.,\\n APPELLANTS\\n\\n v.\\n\\n DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL.,\\n APPELLEES\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the District of Columbia\\n (No. 1:14-cv-01293)\\n\\n\\n Kelly P. Dunbar argued the cause for appellants. With him\\non the brief were Carl J. Nichols and Thomas C. Kost.\\n\\n Jason Lederstein, Assistant Attorney General, Office of\\nthe Attorney General for the District of Columbia, argued the\\ncause for appellees. With him on the briefs were Karl A.\\nRacine, Attorney General, Loren L. AliKhan, Solicitor General,\\nand Caroline S. Van Zile, Deputy Solicitor General.\\n\\n John R. Hoellen and Lauren R.S. Mendonsa were on the\\nbrief for amicus curiae Council of the District of Columbia in\\nsupport of appellees.\\n\\f 2\\n Roger E. Warin, Osvaldo Vazquez, Marcus Gadson, and\\nJonathan Smith were on the brief for amici curiae Community\\nMembers and Organizations in support of defendants-\\nappellees.\\n\\n Before: HENDERSON, SRINIVASAN and MILLETT, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SRINIVASAN.\\n\\n SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judge: In 1996, Congress enacted\\nthe School Reform Act, which established parallel systems of\\ntraditional public schools and charter schools in the District of\\nColumbia. The Act requires the District to fund the operating\\nexpenses of public and charter schools on a uniform, per-\\nstudent basis. In this case, the D.C. Association of Chartered\\nPublic Schools contends that the District’s school funding\\npractices inadequately fund charter schools. The district court\\nrejected the Association’s claims. We conclude, though, that\\nthe district court lacked jurisdiction to hear this case.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n The Constitution’s District Clause grants Congress the\\npower “[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases\\nwhatsoever, over [the] District [of Columbia].” U.S. Const.\\nart. I, § 8, cl. 17. Pursuant to that Clause, Congress can\\ndelegate “legislative power” to the District. District of\\nColumbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 109 (1953).\\nCongress did so in the District of Columbia Self-Government\\nand Governmental Reorganization Act, Pub. L. No. 93-198, 87\\nStat. 774 (1973) (codified as amended at D.C. Code § 1-201.01\\net seq.)—also known as the Home Rule Act, or HRA—which\\nsought to “relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon\\nessentially local District matters,” id. § 102(a).\\n\\f 3\\n Congress, however, limited the District’s power to\\nlegislate in certain respects. Of most relevance for our\\npurposes, Congress barred the District from amending or\\nrepealing an Act of Congress that “is not restricted in its\\napplication exclusively in or to the District.” Id. § 602(a)(3).\\n\\n In 1996, Congress enacted the School Reform Act, Pub. L.\\nNo. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-107 (1996), which authorized the\\ncreation of charter schools in the District. The Act addresses\\nthe annual operating budgets for both traditional public schools\\nand charter schools. It provides that the District “shall\\nestablish . . . a formula to determine the amount of . . . the\\nannual payment to the Board of Education for the operating\\nexpenses of the District of Columbia public schools . . . [and]\\nthe annual payment to each public charter school for [its]\\noperating expenses.” Id. § 2401(b)(1). The “amount of the\\nannual payment” for each school “shall be calculated by\\nmultiplying a uniform dollar amount . . . [by] the number of\\nstudents” enrolled at the school. Id. § 2401(b)(2).\\n\\n The District’s uniform per-student funding level for both\\ntraditional public and charter schools is currently $10,658. See\\nD.C. Code § 38-2903. But the District allocates certain\\nadditional funding to traditional public schools above the per-\\npupil amount (including for maintenance of facilities and for\\nteacher pensions). The District also applies the per-pupil\\nformula to traditional public schools and charter schools in a\\nslightly different way: the District makes one annual payment\\nto traditional public schools based on the prior year’s\\nenrollment, see D.C. Code § 38-2906(a), whereas for charter\\nschools, the District makes quarterly payments that can be\\nadjusted during the year if the actual enrollment turns out to\\ndiffer from projected enrollment, id. § 38-2906.02(b)–(c).\\n\\f 4\\n The D.C. Association of Chartered Public Schools brought\\nsuit challenging the District’s funding practices. The\\nAssociation contends that the District underfunds charter\\nschools relative to traditional public schools, in violation of the\\nSchool Reform Act, the Home Rule Act, and the Constitution.\\nThe district court ruled for the District on all counts, and the\\nAssociation now appeals.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n We do not reach the merits of the Association’s claims\\nbecause we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction\\nover them. The Association contends that its claims under the\\nSchool Reform Act, Home Rule Act, and Constitution fall\\nwithin the district court’s original jurisdiction over claims\\narising under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. None of those\\nclaims, however, arises under federal law within the meaning\\nof the federal-question statute. We thus vacate the district\\ncourt’s judgment and remand for dismissal of the complaint for\\nwant of jurisdiction.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n We first consider whether the district court had jurisdiction\\nover the Association’s claim under the School Reform Act. For\\npurposes of our analysis, we assume that Act furnishes a cause\\nof action. The District makes no argument to the contrary, and\\nin general, “the absence of a valid (as opposed to arguable)\\ncause of action does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction.”\\nSteel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998).\\n\\n Under the federal-question statute, the “district courts shall\\nhave original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the\\nConstitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1331. For purposes of that provision, “a case can arise under\\n\\f 5\\nfederal law in two ways.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 257\\n(2013) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).\\n\\n “Most directly, a case arises under federal law when\\nfederal law creates the cause of action asserted.” Id.; see Am.\\nWell Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260\\n(1916). That test “accounts for the vast bulk of suits that arise\\nunder federal law.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 257.\\n\\n A claim under the School Reform Act cannot qualify for\\nfederal-question jurisdiction under that test. That is because\\nthe School Reform Act is not a “law of the United States”\\nwithin the meaning of § 1331. Another provision, 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1366, prescribes that, “[f]or the purposes of [§ 1331],\\nreferences to laws of the United States . . . do not include laws\\napplicable exclusively to the District of Columbia.” The\\nSchool Reform Act is such a law: it applies solely to the\\nDistrict, establishing and regulating charter schools within the\\nDistrict alone. Section 1366 then denies the School Reform\\nAct the status of a “law of the United States” for purposes of\\nthe federal-question statute.\\n\\n The Association does not dispute that conclusion. Instead,\\nthe Association relies on the second way in which an action\\narises under federal law for purposes of federal-question\\njurisdiction, which applies even though the cause of action is\\ncreated by state law rather than federal law. In that “slim\\ncategory” of cases, “federal jurisdiction over a state law claim\\nwill lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually\\ndisputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in\\nfederal court without disrupting the federal-state balance\\napproved by Congress.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258. That test is\\nnot met here.\\n\\n The Association identifies no federal question “necessarily\\nraised” by its claim under the School Reform Act. The\\n\\f 6\\nAssociation submits that its claim raises a federal question—\\ni.e., “whether the District may amend or repeal” the School\\nReform Act pursuant to its authority under the Home Rule Act.\\nAssociation Supp. Br. 7; see HRA § 602(a)(3). But that\\nquestion, even assuming it is federal in character, is not an\\n“essential element” of a School Reform Act claim, as would be\\nnecessary for the claim to support federal-question jurisdiction.\\nGrable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545\\nU.S. 308, 315 (2005). The Association raises that question, not\\nas an essential part of its affirmative claim, but instead in\\nresponse to an anticipated defense—namely, the District’s\\ndefense that, even if its actions conflict with the School Reform\\nAct, it can amend or repeal that Act pursuant to its authority\\nunder the Home Rule Act. And it is black-letter law that an\\nanticipated federal defense does not substantiate federal-\\nquestion jurisdiction. See Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v.\\nMottley, 211 U.S. 149, 153 (1908). The Association thus errs\\nin arguing that its School Reform Act claim arises under federal\\nlaw even if the cause of action is nonfederal.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Next, the Association relies on its claim under the Home\\nRule Act. Again, we assume, without deciding, that the Act\\nfurnishes a cause of action. See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 89. The\\ngravamen of the Association’s claim is that the District’s\\nalleged contravention of the School Reform Act amounts to a\\nviolation of the Home Rule Act. That claim does not arise\\nunder federal law within the meaning of the federal-question\\nstatute.\\n\\n The Home Rule Act is a “hybrid statute,” Thomas v. Barry,\\n729 F.2d 1469, 1471 (D.C. Cir. 1984), in that while certain of\\nits provisions apply “exclusively to the District of Columbia,”\\n28 U.S.C. § 1366, others do not. In order to determine whether\\n\\f 7\\na particular claim asserted under the Act falls within federal-\\nquestion jurisdiction, we must assess whether the specific\\nprovision at issue is federal or local in character. That analysis\\nturns on whether the provision can be “equated” with laws\\n“enacted by state and local governments having plenary power\\nto legislate for the general welfare of their citizens.” Thomas,\\n729 F.2d at 1471 (quoting Key v. Doyle, 434 U.S. 59, 68 n.13\\n(1977)).\\n\\n For example, in Thomas, we examined a claim raised\\nunder section 204 of the Home Rule Act, which “transfers\\ncertain functions away from the Secretary of Labor” and\\nabolishes another federal “position entirely within the federal\\nsystem.” Id. We concluded that section 204 is federal in\\ncharacter because a “state or local statute” could not “direct the\\nfederal government to affect transfers or to abolish positions\\naltering its structure.” Id.\\n\\n Here, the pertinent provisions of the Home Rule Act are\\nsections 602(a)(3) and 717(b). Section 602(a)(3) provides that\\nthe D.C. Council “shall have no authority to . . . enact any act\\nto amend or repeal any Act of Congress . . . which is not\\nrestricted in its application exclusively in or to the District.”\\nHRA § 602(a)(3) (codified at D.C. Code § 1-206.02(a)(3)).\\nSection 717(b) provides in pertinent part that “[n]o law or\\nregulation which is in force on” the Home Rule Act’s effective\\ndate (January 2, 1975) “shall be deemed amended or repealed\\nby this Act . . . but any such law or regulation may be amended\\nor repealed by act or resolution as authorized in this Act.” HRA\\n§ 717(b) (codified at D.C. Code § 1-207.17(b)).\\n\\n The Association argues that those provisions are federal in\\ncharacter. That proposition cannot be squared with our\\ndecision in Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179 (D.C.\\nCir. 1986). There, we considered the existence of federal-\\n\\f 8\\nquestion jurisdiction over claims brought under two provisions\\nof the Home Rule Act. One limits the District’s authority to\\n“[e]nact any act, resolution, or rule . . . (relating to organization\\nand jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts).” HRA\\n§ 602(a)(4) (codified at D.C. Code § 1-206.02(a)(4)). The\\nother limits the District’s authority to “[e]nact any act or\\nregulation relating to the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Columbia.” HRA § 602(a)(8) (codified at D.C.\\nCode § 1-206.02(a)(8)). We concluded that § 1366 excluded\\nboth provisions from the body of federal law because they both\\n“would appear to apply exclusively to the District.” Dimond,\\n792 F.2d at 188.\\n\\n That logic equally applies here. In particular, the\\nprovisions of the Home Rule Act at issue in this case resemble\\nthe provisions we considered in Dimond in relevant respects.\\nLike those provisions, § 602(a)(3) imposes a constraint only on\\nthe District’s power to legislate, and its effect does not go\\nbeyond the compass of the District. It can thus be “equated”\\nwith local law, such that it falls outside the body of federal law\\nby operation of § 1366. Thomas, 729 F.2d at 1471. So too for\\n§ 717(b), which merely announces a default rule with respect\\nto laws in place on the effective date of the Home Rule Act.\\nThat provision clarifies that laws in effect on that date remain\\nin place but are subject to repeal by the District. Section\\n717(b)’s effect is confined exclusively to the District, and the\\nprovision is thus excluded from federal law by § 1366.\\n\\n The Association disputes that understanding of § 717(b).\\nIt reads the provision to “grant[], but then delimit[], the\\nDistrict’s authority to amend congressional enactments.”\\nAssociation Supp. Br. 6. Even so, such a limitation on\\nlegislative authority would apply exclusively to the District.\\nThe provision thus would remain indistinguishable in character\\nfrom sections 602(a)(4) and 602(a)(8) of the Act, the provisions\\n\\f 9\\nwe considered in Dimond, 792 F.2d at 188. It follows that the\\nAssociation’s claim under the Home Rule Act, like its claim\\nunder the School Reform Act, cannot establish federal-question\\njurisdiction.\\n\\n C.\\n\\n We turn last to the Association’s claim that the School\\nReform Act preempts contrary District law, including the\\nschool-funding provisions of the D.C. Code at issue. The\\nAssociation argues that a preemption-based action of that kind\\narises under federal law for purposes of federal-question\\njurisdiction. We disagree.\\n\\n In its complaint, the Association styled its preemption\\nclaim as arising under both the District Clause and the\\nSupremacy Clause. See Complaint ¶ 79–89, J.A. 34–38. In its\\nbriefing before our court, the Association relies exclusively on\\nthe District Clause. See Association Supp. Br. 2–5. In either\\nevent, the claim does not support federal-question jurisdiction.\\n\\n Under the general test for federal-question jurisdiction, a\\nclaim “arises under” federal law only if federal law creates the\\nasserted cause of action. See Gunn, 568 U.S. at 257; Am. Well\\nWorks Co., 241 U.S. at 260. And for preemption-like claims,\\nthe District Clause—like the Supremacy Clause—“certainly\\ndoes not create a cause of action.” Armstrong v. Exceptional\\nChild Ctr., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1378, 1383 (2015). Rather, the\\nDistrict Clause, like the Supremacy Clause, “is silent regarding\\nwho may enforce federal laws in court, and in what\\ncircumstances they may do so.” Id. Neither the District Clause\\nnor the Supremacy Clause then directly furnishes the\\nAssociation with a cause of action.\\n\\n Still, the Association correctly observes that “[s]uits to\\nenjoin official conduct that conflicts with the federal\\n\\f 10\\nConstitution are common.” Association Supp. Br. 2. Indeed,\\na cause of action routinely exists for such claims. See, e.g.,\\nVerizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635,\\n642 (2002); Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96\\n(1983); see also Richard H. Fallon, Jr. et al., Hart & Wechsler’s\\nThe Federal Courts and the Federal System 844–45 (7th ed.\\n2015). But the cause of action for such claims does not arise\\nunder the Constitution itself. Rather, it exists as “the creation\\nof courts of equity.” Armstrong, 135 S. Ct. at 1384. In other\\nwords, the Association’s putative cause of action for its\\npreemption-based claim would arise under federal common\\nlaw. See id. We assume the existence of such a common-law\\naction here (although we note that an action “to enjoin unlawful\\nexecutive action is subject to express and implied statutory\\nlimitations,” Armstrong, 135 S. Ct. at 1385, and we have no\\noccasion to consider whether any such limitations would\\npreclude recognizing a cause of action in this case).\\n\\n While claims arising under federal common law typically\\nfall within federal-question jurisdiction, see Illinois v. City of\\nMilwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 100 (1972), here, § 1366 forecloses\\nfederal jurisdiction. Under that statute, as we have seen,\\nfederal-question jurisdiction excludes claims whose cause of\\naction arises under “laws applicable exclusively to the District\\nof Columbia.” Because the School Reform Act applies solely\\nto the District, a common-law cause of action to guard against\\n“illegal executive action” in violation of that Act, Armstrong,\\n135 S. Ct. at 1384, would have no broader application than the\\nAct itself. Such an action would apply exclusively to the\\nDistrict, such that it would fall outside of federal-question\\njurisdiction by operation of § 1366.\\n\\n If it were otherwise, a litigant bringing a claim barred from\\nfederal court by § 1366 could nonetheless gain access to a\\nfederal forum merely by restyling her claim as a “preemption”\\n\\f 11\\none to enforce an ostensibly supreme federal law. Such a\\nregime would make little sense. Rather, the Supreme Court has\\nestablished that, even for preemption claims, the availability of\\nfederal-question jurisdiction hinges on Congress’s “intent to\\nwithdraw federal jurisdiction under § 1331.” Verizon, 535 U.S.\\nat 644. Section 1366 speaks directly to that intent in the\\ncircumstances of this case. We thus conclude that the district\\ncourt lacked jurisdiction over any common-law cause of action\\nto enforce the School Reform Act.\\n\\n * * * * *\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of the\\ndistrict court and remand with instructions to dismiss the\\ncomplaint for want of jurisdiction.\\n\\n So ordered.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3466,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":7336933,"string":"7,336,933"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY AFFILIATED PLANS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Ass'n for Cmty. Affiliated Plans v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-19"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"Civil Case No. 18-2133 (RJL)"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Leon\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254853/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"LEON"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"LEON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336933/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY AFFILIATED PLANS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-19\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY AFFILIATED PLANS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-19\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3467,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":7336667,"string":"7,336,667"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"BRAEBURN INC. v. UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, and Indivior Inc., Intervenor-Defendant"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Braeburn Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-22"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"Civil Action No. 19-982 (BAH)"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Howell\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254587/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"HOWELL"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HOWELL"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336667/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: BRAEBURN INC. v. UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, and Indivior Inc., Intervenor-Defendant\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-22\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: BRAEBURN INC. v. UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, and Indivior Inc., Intervenor-Defendant\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-22\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3468,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":7336668,"string":"7,336,668"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"BETHESDA HEALTH, INC. v. Alex M. AZAR II, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Bethesda Health, Inc. v. Azar"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-23"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"Civil Action No. 18-875 (RMC)"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Collyer\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254588/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"COLLYER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"COLLYER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336668/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: BETHESDA HEALTH, INC. v. Alex M. AZAR II, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-23\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: BETHESDA HEALTH, INC. v. Alex M. AZAR II, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-23\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3469,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":7336841,"string":"7,336,841"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Teman CHOW v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Chow v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-23"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"Case No. 1:19-cv-01354 (TNM)"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"McFadden\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254761/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MCFADDEN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MCFADDEN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336841/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Teman CHOW v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-23\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Teman CHOW v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-23\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3470,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":8344506,"string":"8,344,506"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Mary E. CHAMBERS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Chambers v. Dist. of Columbia"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-24"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"Civil Action No. 14-2032 (RBW)"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8312943/\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8344506/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Mary E. CHAMBERS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-24\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Mary E. CHAMBERS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-24\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3471,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":7336845,"string":"7,336,845"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Donald J. TRUMP v. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Trump v. Comm on Ways & Ways"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-25"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"Case No. 1:19-cv-02173 (TNM)"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"McFadden\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254765/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MCFADDEN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MCFADDEN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336845/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Donald J. TRUMP v. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-25\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Donald J. TRUMP v. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-25\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3472,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4643277,"string":"4,643,277"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Jerry MCILWAIN, Appellant"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Jerry McIlwain"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-26"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3087"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, TATEL, Circuit Judge, and SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge GARLAND\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued March 19, 2019 Decided July 26, 2019\\n\\n No. 18-3087\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n APPELLEE\\n\\n v.\\n\\n JERRY MCILWAIN,\\n APPELLANT\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the District of Columbia\\n (No. 1:18-cr-00214-1)\\n\\n\\n A.J. Kramer, Federal Public Defender, argued the cause and\\nfiled the memorandum of law and fact and reply for appellant.\\n\\n Daniel J. Lenerz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause\\nfor appellee. With him on the memorandum of law and fact\\nwere Jessie K. Liu, U.S. Attorney, and Elizabeth Trosman,\\nAssistant U.S. Attorney.\\n\\n Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, TATEL, Circuit Judge, and\\nSENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.\\n\\n 2\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge GARLAND.\\n\\n Opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment\\nfiled by Senior Circuit Judge SENTELLE.\\n\\n GARLAND, Chief Judge: Federal Rule of Criminal\\nProcedure 32(e)(3) provides that, “by order in a case,” a district\\ncourt “may direct the probation officer not to disclose to anyone\\nother than the court the officer’s recommendation on the\\nsentence.” Defendant Jerry McIlwain filed an unopposed\\nmotion asking the district court to direct the probation officer to\\ndisclose the sentencing recommendation in his case. The court\\ndenied McIlwain’s request pursuant to its “policy” of “always\\ntreat[ing]” the recommendations “as confidential.” 11/30/18\\nSent’g Tr. 3 (App. 58). Rule 32(e)(3), however, requires a\\ndistrict court to exercise discretion in deciding whether to\\nwithhold the recommendation. Because that discretion must be\\nbased on case-specific reasoning rather than on a uniform\\npolicy, we vacate McIlwain’s sentence and remand for\\nresentencing.\\n\\n I\\n\\n In June 2017, the Federal Bureau of Prisons released Jerry\\nMcIlwain from detention in Cumberland, Maryland and directed\\nhim to report to Hope Village, a halfway house in Washington,\\nD.C., to serve the remaining ten months of his sentence.\\nMcIlwain never reported to the halfway house, and the Bureau\\nplaced him on escape status. About a year later, a federal grand\\njury indicted McIlwain for escape, in violation of 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 751(a). A magistrate judge issued a warrant for his arrest, and\\nU.S. Marshals took him into custody soon thereafter.\\n\\n McIlwain pled guilty on October 3, 2018. In exchange for\\nhis plea, the government agreed to ask for a sentence at the low\\n\\n 3\\n\\nend of the Guidelines range -- eight months -- and to allow\\nMcIlwain to argue for a sentence of time served. McIlwain filed\\na sentencing memorandum requesting time served -- about four\\nmonths.\\n\\n On November 27, McIlwain filed an unopposed motion\\nasking the district judge to order the probation officer to disclose\\nthe sentencing recommendation, pursuant to Rule 32(e)(3). The\\nrule states that, “[b]y local rule or by order in a case, the court\\nmay direct the probation officer not to disclose to anyone other\\nthan the court the officer’s recommendation on the sentence.”\\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 32(e)(3). McIlwain noted that “[t]here is no\\nsuch local rule in this district, nor has the court directed that the\\nsentence recommendation not be disclosed.” Motion for\\nDisclosure of Sent’g Rec. 1 (App. 35).\\n\\n McIlwain also pointed out that not merely was his motion\\nunopposed, but both the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the U.S.\\nProbation Office supported (and still support) the disclosure of\\nsentencing recommendations as a matter of course. Id. at 1-2\\n(App. 35-36); see Letter from Federal Public Defender A.J.\\nKramer to Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell (May 15, 2017) (App.\\n41) (confirming the U.S. Attorney’s continued support for\\nroutine disclosure); Letter from Chief U.S. Probation Officer\\nBrian D. Shaffer to Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell (Sept. 6, 2017)\\n(“2017 Shaffer Letter”) (App. 39-40); Letter from U.S. Attorney\\nEric H. Holder to Judge Thomas F. Hogan, Chair, District Court\\nRules Committee (Sept. 22, 1995) (“1995 Holder Letter”) (App.\\n49-50).\\n\\n Nonetheless, at the November 30, 2018 sentencing hearing,\\nthe district judge denied McIlwain’s motion to disclose the\\nrecommendation. 11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 2 (App. 57). After\\nacknowledging that he had discretion in the matter, the judge\\nexplained his decision as follows:\\n\\n 4\\n\\n Sentencing has become too complicated and the\\n guidelines have become too complicated[,] . . . and I\\n find . . . [the] experienced probation officers[’] . . .\\n recommendations . . . very helpful . . . . I have been\\n concerned and remain concerned that the candor of\\n those recommendations would be affected by their\\n disclosing them and having to answer for them to\\n outside counsel. And because they’re officers of the\\n court, I have always treated them as confidential and\\n have always exercised my discretion to maintain their\\n confidentiality and do not disclose them . . . , and so I\\n have always maintained that policy myself and I have\\n interpreted the rule to not require a judge to require . . .\\n disclosure.\\n\\nId. at 3 (App. 58). The judge then concluded:\\n\\n I don’t think, in any particular individual case,\\n [disclosure] would necessarily have any great effect,\\n but the cumulative effect of the different relationship\\n that I would have in particular with the probation\\n officers and the candor of their recommendations and\\n their ability to assist the Court in the sentencing\\n process, I have consistently thought, would be greatly\\n affected, and so I will deny the motion.\\n\\nId. at 3-4 (App. 58-59). Thereafter, the judge rejected\\nMcIlwain’s request for time served and instead sentenced him\\nto eight months, as the government had requested. Id. at 19\\n(App. 74).\\n\\n McIlwain now appeals, raising a single argument: “The\\ndistrict court improperly refused to disclose the sentencing\\nrecommendation.” McIlwain Br. 9.\\n\\n 5\\n\\n II\\n\\n Rule 32(e)(3) provides:\\n\\n By local rule or by order in a case, the court may\\n direct the probation officer not to disclose to anyone\\n other than the court the officer’s recommendation on\\n the sentence.\\n\\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 32(e)(3) (emphasis added). The notes of the\\nAdvisory Committee on Criminal Rules make clear that the\\nrule’s inverse is also true: If the court does not direct\\nnondisclosure “in an individual case or in accordance with a\\nlocal rule,” then “the recommendation . . . is subject to\\ndisclosure.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32, advisory committee note to\\n1994 amendment.1 Thus, the default position -- in the absence\\nof a local rule or order in a case -- is disclosure. See Gov’t Br.\\n8 (agreeing “that the default position of Rule 32(e)(3) is that the\\nrecommendation must be disclosed” (internal quotation marks\\nomitted)).\\n\\n That has not always been so. The rule governing\\npresentence investigations was originally adopted in 1944 and,\\nby 1966, provided that “[t]he court before imposing sentence\\nmay disclose to the defendant or his counsel all or part of the\\nmaterial contained in the report of the presentence\\ninvestigation.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(2) (1966). The 1966 rule\\ndid not specifically mention the sentencing recommendation at\\nall, and it left the decision whether to disclose the presentence\\nreport up to the district court. Both of those things remained\\ntrue until the 1974 amendment, when the rule was changed to\\n\\n\\n 1\\n See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 64 n.6 (2002) (“In the\\nabsence of a clear legislative mandate, the Advisory Committee Notes\\nprovide a reliable source of insight into the meaning of a rule . . . .”).\\n\\n 6\\n\\nrequire that the district court “shall upon request permit the\\ndefendant . . . to read the report of the presentence investigation\\nexclusive of any recommendation as to sentence.” FED. R. CRIM.\\nP. 32(c)(3) (1975) (emphasis added). In 1983, the requirement\\nthat the defendant request the report was removed, making\\ndisclosure of the report automatic. FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(3)(A)\\n(1983). Left in place, however, was the bar against disclosing\\nthe recommendation. Id.\\n\\n Finally, in 1994, the essence of the current rule was\\nadopted: “Not less than 35 days before the sentencing\\nhearing . . . the probation officer must furnish the presentence\\nreport to the defendant, the defendant’s counsel, and the attorney\\nfor the Government. The court may, by local rule or in\\nindividual cases, direct that the probation officer not disclose the\\nprobation officer’s recommendation, if any, on the sentence.”\\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 32(b)(6)(A) (1994). In 2002, the text of that\\nprovision was changed, solely for stylistic purposes, and the\\nprovision was renumbered as Rule 32(e)(2) and (3). See FED. R.\\nCRIM. P. 32, advisory committee note to 2002 amendment. The\\ncurrent text of the second sentence just quoted now reads: “By\\nlocal rule or by order in a case, the court may direct the\\nprobation officer not to disclose to anyone other than the court\\nthe officer’s recommendation on the sentence.” FED. R. CRIM.\\nP. 32(e)(3).\\n\\n As this history shows, the defaults for both the report and\\nthe recommendation have evolved over time. Disclosure of the\\nreport was formerly optional, and disclosure of the\\nrecommendation was prohibited. Now, disclosure of the report\\nis mandatory, as is disclosure of the recommendation -- absent\\na “local rule” or “order in a case.”\\n\\n The question before us, therefore, is whether a “local rule”\\nor “order in a case” properly barred disclosure here. The answer\\n\\n 7\\n\\nto the “local rule” part of the question is easy. That term does\\nnot refer to a rule governing proceedings before a single judge\\n(often referred to in this district as a “standing order”). Rather,\\nit refers to a rule, adopted by a majority of the judges of the\\nrelevant district court, that governs proceedings before every\\njudge of that court. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 57(a)(1).2 The U.S.\\nDistrict Court for the District of Columbia has not adopted any\\nlocal rule regarding disclosure of a probation officer’s\\nsentencing recommendation. See Letter from Chief Judge Beryl\\nA. Howell to Federal Public Defender A.J. Kramer (Sept. 20,\\n2017) (App. 38). Thus, as the government acknowledges, the\\ndistrict judge did not deny McIlwain’s motion for disclosure (or\\ndirect nondisclosure) pursuant to the “local rule” provision.\\nGov’t Br. 10.\\n\\n As both parties agree, however, the judge here did issue an\\n“order in a case” -- namely, McIlwain’s case -- that effectively\\ndirected the probation officer not to disclose the sentencing\\nrecommendation. Gov’t Br. 12; Oral Arg. Tr. 5:17-21\\n(McIlwain’s counsel); see 11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 4 (App. 59);\\nMinute Order (11/30/18). The order, which denied McIlwain’s\\nmotion for disclosure, had that effect because everyone\\nconcerned understood the judge’s position to be that the\\nprobation officer could not disclose the officer’s\\n\\n\\n 2\\n Rule 57(a)(1) provides:\\n\\n (1) Adopting Local Rules. Each district court acting by a\\n majority of its district judges may, after giving appropriate\\n public notice and an opportunity to comment, make and\\n amend rules governing its practice. A local rule must be\\n consistent with -- but not duplicative of -- federal statutes\\n and rules adopted under 28 U.S.C. § 2072 . . . .\\n\\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 57(a)(1).\\n\\n 8\\n\\nrecommendation without an affirmative order. See 11/30/18\\nSent’g Tr. 2 (App. 57); McIlwain Br. 4-5, 12. We therefore turn\\nto McIlwain’s contention that the nondisclosure order was\\nimproper.\\n\\n III\\n\\n Once again, Rule 32(e)(3) provides that, “[b]y order in a\\ncase, the court may direct the probation officer not to\\ndisclose . . . the officer’s recommendation on the sentence.”\\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 32(e)(3) (emphasis added). “The word ‘may’\\nclearly connotes discretion.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs.,\\nInc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1931 (2016). And the 1994 Advisory\\nCommittee notes confirm this reading: “Under th[e] new\\nprovision . . . , the court has the discretion (in an individual case\\nor in accordance with a local rule) to direct the probation officer\\nto withhold any final recommendation.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32,\\nadvisory committee note to 1994 amendment (emphasis added).\\n\\n Because the rule grants the district court discretion, it\\nfollows that we review the court’s order for abuse of discretion.\\nThis conforms with how we treat other federal rules providing\\nthat a district court “may” do something: We have held that\\nsuch rules authorize discretion and are reviewed for abuse of\\ndiscretion.3 Both parties to this appeal agree that this is the\\nstandard of review applicable to the district court’s order here.\\n\\n\\n\\n 3\\n See, e.g., United States v. Cordova, 806 F.3d 1085, 1090 (D.C.\\nCir. 2015) (Rule 16(d)(1): the court “may” grant protective orders);\\nUnited States v. Mejia, 448 F.3d 436, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Rule 7(f):\\nthe court “may” direct the government to file a bill of particulars);\\nUnited States v. Ginyard, 444 F.3d 648, 651-53 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Rule\\n23(b)(3): the court “may” permit an eleven-person jury to return a\\nverdict).\\n\\n 9\\n\\nSee McIlwain Reply Br. 2, 4; Gov’t Br. vi, 7-8; Oral Arg. Tr.\\n17:18-20 (government counsel).\\n\\n But before we can assess whether the district court abused\\nits discretion, we must determine what discretion under Rule\\n32(e)(3) entails. That question -- the meaning of a federal rule\\nitself -- is one we decide de novo. See, e.g., United States v.\\nGewin, 471 F.3d 197, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“A district court’s\\ninterpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence is a question of\\nlaw, which we review de novo.”); Handy v. Shaw, Bransford,\\nVeilleux & Roth, 325 F.3d 346, 349 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“Whether\\nthe lower court applied the proper legal standard in exercising\\n[its] discretion . . . is a question of law reviewed de novo.”).\\n\\n We turn first to the scope of a district court’s discretion\\nunder the rule. We then address the manner in which\\nMcIlwain’s sentencing court exercised that discretion.\\n\\n A\\n\\n To determine the scope of the court’s discretion, we begin\\nwith the text of the current rule, which (as relevant here)\\nauthorizes an individual judge to direct nondisclosure “by order\\nin a case.” The best reading of that language is that the order\\nmust be based on something particular about the “case” at issue\\n-- as distinct from an order governing all cases coming before an\\nindividual judge. Had the drafters intended Rule 32 to authorize\\nthat latter kind of order, they could easily have said so. They\\ncould have accomplished that end either by simply leaving “in\\na case” out of the provision or by providing for nondisclosure\\npursuant to a judge’s standing order -- just as they expressly\\nauthorized each federal district to adopt a nondisclosure policy\\nby “local rule,” applicable to every judge and every case in the\\ndistrict.\\n\\n 10\\n\\n This reading is confirmed by examining the text of the rule\\nas it stood in 1994. As recounted in Part II above, that version\\nof the rule stated: “The court may, by local rule or in individual\\ncases, direct that the probation officer not disclose the probation\\nofficer’s recommendation . . . .” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(b)(6)(A)\\n(1994) (emphasis added). The reference to “in individual\\ncases,” even more strongly than the current text’s reference to\\n“in a case,” indicates that the drafters did not intend to authorize\\nthe use of a standing order applicable to all of a judge’s cases.\\nAnd the Advisory Committee notes make clear that the 2002\\namendment that produced the current text was not intended to\\nchange the meaning of the 1994 rule.4\\n\\n This reading is further confirmed by the 1994 Advisory\\nCommittee notes, which expressly state that, “[u]nder th[is]\\nprovision . . . , the court has the discretion (in an individual case\\nor in accordance with a local rule) to direct the probation officer\\nto withhold any final recommendation.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32,\\nadvisory committee note to 1994 amendment (emphasis added).\\nTo exercise “discretion” in an “individual” case, there must be\\nsomething about that individual case that warrants the exercise\\nof discretion. Accordingly, a policy of always barring\\ndisclosure -- regardless of an “individual” case’s circumstances\\n-- does not constitute the exercise of discretion authorized by\\nRule 32.\\n\\n This reading likewise fits with how the Supreme Court\\ndefines discretion. “[D]iscretion,” the Court has explained,\\n\\n\\n 4\\n FED. R. CRIM. P. 32, advisory committee note to 2002\\namendment (“The language of Rule 32 has been amended as part of\\nthe general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily\\nunderstood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout\\nthe rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only, except as\\nnoted below [with respect to provisions not at issue here].”).\\n\\n 11\\n\\nentails a duty “to locate a just result in light of the circumstances\\npeculiar to the case.” Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S.\\n405, 421 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). And it also\\nfits with the Court’s definition of what discretion is not: “The\\nterm ‘discretion’ denotes the absence of a hard and fast rule.”\\nLangnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 541 (1931).\\n\\n Finally, our reading is compelled by this circuit’s repeated\\nholdings regarding an analogous provision of an earlier version\\nof Rule 32 that governed permissive disclosure of presentence\\nreports. As we also recounted in Part II, by 1966 the rule’s\\nlanguage with respect to the presentence report closely\\nresembled its current language regarding the probation officer’s\\nrecommendation. It stated: “The court before imposing\\nsentence may disclose to the defendant or his counsel all or part\\nof the material contained in the report of the presentence\\ninvestigation . . . .” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(2) (1966) (emphasis\\nadded). Thereafter, we consistently interpreted this conferral of\\ndiscretion to require that district judges rely on case-specific\\nreasons when denying disclosure.\\n\\n In United States v. Queen, for example, the district court\\nhad “refused disclosure of the presentence report pursuant to\\n[its] general policy of non-disclosure, and without any reference\\nto the need for disclosure or confidentiality in the circumstances\\nof this particular case.” 435 F.2d 66, 67 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1970).\\nWe held, to the contrary, that “the discretion called for by Rule\\n32 is the exercise of discretion in individual cases, not the\\ndiscretion of the trial judge to adopt a uniform policy of non-\\ndisclosure in all cases irrespective of circumstances.” Id. at 67.\\n\\n In United States v. Bryant, the district court similarly had\\ndenied, “consistently with the judge’s uniform policy,” a\\ndefendant’s request to inspect the presentence report. 442 F.2d\\n775, 776 (D.C. Cir. 1971). Adhering “to the view expressed in\\n\\n 12\\n\\nQueen that the discretion [under Rule 32] must be exercised in\\neach individual case,” we held that the district court “did not\\nproperly exercise its discretion in denying the request.” Id. at\\n777, 776; accord United States v. Dockery, 447 F.2d 1178, 1184\\n(D.C. Cir. 1971) (quoting Queen, 435 F.2d at 67, and Bryant,\\n442 F.2d at 777-78); cf. Pillai v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 485 F.2d\\n1018, 1027 n.27 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (“We have repeatedly held that\\na trial judge, to be held to have properly exercised his discretion,\\nmust necessarily have . . . knowingly made a selection of the\\nlegal alternatives in relation to the facts of the particular\\ncase . . . .” (citing Queen, 435 F.2d 66)).5\\n\\n In sum, these authorities make clear that a district court\\nexercising its discretion to withhold a probation officer’s\\nsentencing recommendation under Rule 32(e)(3) must ground\\nthat decision in the circumstances of a particular case. The rule\\n\\n\\n\\n 5\\n The Second Circuit took the same view of the rule. In United\\nStates v. Brown, that court said:\\n\\n When the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were\\n amended in 1966 to provide . . . that the sentencing court\\n “may disclose” the pre-sentence report, it certainly was\\n intended that the sentencing court exercise its discretion in\\n each case. It is equally clear that when a judge states, as he\\n did here, that in effect his policy is never to disclose\\n presentence reports, that is not an exercise of discretion on\\n an individual basis. Discretion under [then-]Rule 32(c)(2)\\n must be exercised on a case-by-case basis, not by a blanket\\n policy of non-disclosure.\\n\\n470 F.2d 285, 287-88 (2d Cir. 1972) (citing Bryant, 442 F.2d 775, as\\nwell as cases from the Seventh and Eighth Circuits).\\n\\n 13\\n\\ndoes not grant the district court discretion to adopt a blanket\\npolicy applicable to all sentencings that come before it.\\n\\n B\\n\\n With this understanding of discretion in hand, we next ask\\nwhether the district court properly exercised its discretion in this\\ncase. The government agrees that, under Rule 32(e)(3), an\\nindividual judge may not adopt a “blanket policy” of\\nnondisclosure that “applies in all cases.” Oral Arg. Tr. 18:13-\\n22. It further agrees that nondisclosure requires “case-specific\\nreason[s].” Id. at 18:1-9. It insists, however, that the district\\ncourt found such case-specific reasons here. As to this last\\npoint, we disagree.\\n\\n At sentencing, the district court made clear that it was\\ndenying disclosure based on its own, blanket nondisclosure\\npolicy:\\n\\n [B]ecause they’re officers of the court, I have always\\n treated [the officers’ recommendations] as confidential\\n and have always exercised my discretion to maintain\\n their confidentiality and do not disclose them . . . , and\\n so I have always maintained that policy myself and I\\n have interpreted the rule to not require a judge to\\n require . . . disclosure. So the motion for disclosure of\\n their recommendation is denied.\\n\\n11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 3 (App. 58) (emphasis added). Moreover,\\nthe court forthrightly acknowledged that its ruling was not based\\non circumstances particular to McIlwain’s case:\\n\\n I don’t think, in any particular individual case,\\n [disclosure] would necessarily have any great effect,\\n but the cumulative effect of the different relationship\\n\\n 14\\n\\n that I would have in particular with the probation\\n officers and the candor of their recommendations and\\n their ability to assist the Court in the sentencing\\n process, I have consistently thought, would be greatly\\n affected, and so I will deny the motion.\\n\\nId. at 3-4 (App. 58-59) (emphasis added). To bar disclosure\\n“always,” “consistently,” and pursuant to a “policy” is to\\ncontravene Queen’s holding -- applicable to the current version\\nof Rule 32 as well -- that “the discretion called for by Rule 32 is\\nthe exercise of discretion in individual cases, not the discretion\\nof the trial judge to adopt a uniform policy of non-disclosure in\\nall cases irrespective of circumstances.” 435 F.3d at 67; accord\\nBryant, 442 F.2d at 776.\\n\\n Notwithstanding the transcript quoted above, the\\ngovernment maintains that the district court did rely on a case-\\nspecific reason. This is the government’s argument: “The\\ndistrict court’s conclusion that nondisclosure was necessary in\\nMcIlwain’s particular case to avoid the ‘cumulative effect’ of\\nrepeat disclosures [on the probation officers’ candor] constituted\\nan adequate ‘specific reason[] for its denial in this case.’” Gov’t\\nBr. 16 (quoting Bryant, 442 F.2d at 776). But the court made\\nclear that, in its view, nondisclosure was required in every case,\\nregardless of any case’s particular facts, in order to prevent such\\na cumulative effect. See 11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 3 (App. 58) (“I\\ndon’t think . . . any particular individual case . . . would\\nnecessarily have any great effect, but the cumulative effect of\\nthe different relationship that I would have . . . would be greatly\\naffected . . . .”). And the government acknowledges that the\\ncourt’s prevention-of-cumulative-effect rationale would in fact\\napply in every case: “It’s a case-specific reason,” the\\ngovernment says, “that would apply in all cases.” Oral Arg. Tr.\\n19:9-10; see id. at 20:9-11 (government counsel’s\\nacknowledgment that the judge “didn’t point to anything\\n\\n 15\\n\\nparticular about McIlwain’s case that made it different from\\nother cases”).\\n\\n But a reason that applies in every case is not a case-specific\\nreason. It is a uniform policy. And Rule 32 does not authorize\\nan individual judge to issue a nondisclosure order on that basis.\\n\\n None of this is to say that the district court’s policy is\\nunreasonable. The court defended its decision on the ground\\nthat “sentencing has become too complicated” for “law\\nclerks . . . to keep up with,” and that the views of “experienced\\nprobation officers” are therefore “very helpful to the Court.”\\n11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 3 (App. 58). The court feared that “the\\ncandor of [the officers’] recommendations would be affected by\\ntheir disclosing them and having to answer for them to outside\\ncounsel.” Id. The court’s concerns are the same as those that\\nanimated the pre-1994 version of Rule 32, which required the\\ndistrict court to disclose the presentence report but barred\\ndisclosure of “any recommendation as to sentence,” FED. R.\\nCRIM. P. 32(c)(3)(A) (1974). See United States v. Peterson, 711\\nF.3d 770, 776 (7th Cir. 2013) (“At the time of its enactment, the\\npurpose behind [barring disclosure of the recommendation] was\\nto allow probation officers the opportunity to provide a candid\\nassessment of the defendant to the court and to protect the\\neffectiveness of the probation officer in the supervisory\\ncontext.” (citing FED. R. CRIM. P. 32, advisory committee note\\nto 1974 amendment)).\\n\\n The opposing position is also reasonable. Both the\\nprobation office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office support\\ndisclosure. The probation office believes that routine disclosure\\nof the recommendation has the potential to “strengthen[] the\\nperception of the probation office’s independent role in the\\n\\n 16\\n\\nsentencing process.” 2017 Shaffer Letter (App. 40).6 The U.S.\\nAttorney’s Office likewise “agree[s] that it’s good policy for\\njudges to disclose the probation officer’s recommended\\nsentences,” Oral Arg. Tr. 17:13-15, both because “an individual\\nwho faces incarceration should be apprised of any sentencing\\nrecommendation which may be considered by the court,” and\\nbecause routine disclosure may benefit the government as well,\\n1995 Holder Letter (App. 50). And as for McIlwain, he adds the\\nconcern that an undisclosed recommendation could contain\\nfactual misinformation or legal mistakes that the defendant\\nwould be unable to rebut before sentencing. See McIlwain\\nReply Br. 6-7; Letter from Federal Public Defender A.J. Kramer\\nto Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts (July 21, 2014) (App. 47)\\n(citing instances in which sentencing recommendations\\ncontained incorrect information not included in the presentence\\nreports).\\n\\n This policy debate, however, is beside the point. As both\\nparties agree, the 1994 amendment “change[d]” the former rule,\\nadopting instead a default rule of disclosure. Gov’t Br. 9; see\\nMcIlwain Br. 11-12. An individual district judge can override\\nthat default rule only by exercising case-specific discretion, not\\nby following a blanket policy of nondisclosure -- regardless of\\nthe reasonableness of the concerns that underlie that policy. By\\nresting its decision on a blanket policy, rather than the facts of\\nMcIlwain’s individual case, the district court acted outside of the\\ndiscretion conferred by Rule 32.7\\n\\n\\n 6\\n The probation office also reported that it has found “no evidence\\nto support the position that probation officer safety is compromised\\nfrom routine disclosure” of the recommendation. 2017 Shaffer Letter\\n(App. 39).\\n 7\\n In addition to arguing that the district court abused its discretion\\nby failing to grant his motion for disclosure, McIlwain argues that\\n\\n 17\\n\\n IV\\n\\n Although the district court erred in denying McIlwain’s\\nmotion on the basis of a blanket policy, we must nonetheless\\naffirm the court’s judgment if that error was harmless. See FED.\\nR. CRIM. P. 52(a). In the sentencing context, an “error [is]\\nharmless . . . [if] the error did not affect the district court’s\\nselection of the sentence imposed.” Williams v. United States,\\n503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992). But “[i]f we ha[ve] any doubt as to\\nwhether the erroneous understanding the District Court\\nexpressed . . . affected the District Court’s sentencing decision,\\nwe w[ill] not hold the error to be harmless.” United States v.\\nAyers, 795 F.3d 168, 176 (D.C. Cir. 2015).\\n\\n The government argues that “[t]here is no indication that the\\ndistrict court relied on the probation officer’s sentencing\\nrecommendation in imposing its sentence.” Gov’t Br. 17.\\nMaybe so. But the government bears the burden of showing that\\nthe district court did not rely on the recommendation. See\\nUnited States v. Powell, 334 F.3d 42, 45 (D.C. Cir. 2003)\\n(explaining that the harmless error rule “places the ‘burden of\\nshowing the absence of prejudice’ on the government” (quoting\\nUnited States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 741 (1993))); see also\\nWilliams, 503 U.S. at 203 (“If the party defending the sentence\\npersuades the court of appeals that the district court would have\\nimposed the same sentence absent the erroneous factor, then a\\nremand is not required . . . and the court of appeals may affirm\\nthe sentence . . . .” (emphasis added)).\\n\\n\\n\\nRule 32 requires the probation officer to disclose the sentencing\\nrecommendation automatically, without a motion by the defendant.\\nMcIlwain Reply Br. 1-2. Because McIlwain did file a motion, which\\nwe hold was erroneously denied, we need not address this secondary\\nargument.\\n\\n 18\\n\\n In this case, the district court did not itself give any\\nindication of nonreliance. To the contrary, the judge said\\nthat “I find . . . [the] experienced probation officers[’]\\nrecommendations . . . very helpful” as a general matter.\\n11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 3 (App. 58). Nor can we conclude that there\\nwas no misinformation, factual or legal, in the recommendation.\\nAs we said with respect to the undisclosed presentence report in\\nBryant, “[i]t is difficult to see how it can be known whether a\\ncourt has relied upon misinformation unless the information is\\ndisclosed to the defendant or his counsel.” 442 F.2d at 778.\\nAccordingly, we cannot say that the district court’s error did not\\naffect the sentence it imposed.\\n\\n V\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, we vacate McIlwain’s sentence\\nand remand for resentencing. See Bryant, 442 F.2d at 778-79;\\nBrown, 470 F.2d at 288. On remand, the district court must\\ndisclose the probation officer’s sentencing recommendation\\nunless it finds that case-specific reasons justify nondisclosure.\\n\\n So ordered.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4420530/\", \"author_raw\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge GARLAND\"}, {\"author\": \"SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring in part and\\nconcurring in the judgment: The majority has done an excellent\\njob of reciting the history of the shift of normative rules\\ngoverning a district judge’s discretion to release or withhold a\\nprobation officer’s sentencing recommendation under Fed. R.\\nCrim. P. 32. As the majority notes, the district judge was long\\nobligated to withhold, then granted, discretion to release, and\\nnow exercises, perhaps, a more cabined discretion.\\n\\n The result of this unfolding progression is embodied in the\\npresent language “by order in a case, the court may direct the\\nprobation officer not to disclose . . . the officer’s\\nrecommendation on the sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e)(3)\\n(emphasis added). As the majority notes, the language of the\\nrule recognizes discretion residing in the district judge. “ ‘The\\nword “may” clearly connotes discretion.’ ” Maj. Op. at 8\\n(quoting Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923,\\n1931 (2016)). The majority concludes that if the drafters had\\n“intended Rule 32 to authorize” an order by the district court\\nreflecting a general policy in all cases rather than a case-specific\\nanalysis, the drafters “could easily have said so.” Maj. Op. at 9.\\nIf the story ended there, I would express my recognition that if\\nthe drafters intended to deprive district courts of a type of\\ndiscretion they had long exercised, they could have expressly\\nsaid that as well. I would therefore have dissented. But the\\nstory does not end there.\\n\\n The majority relies with great credibility on United States\\nv. Queen, 435 F.2d 66, 67 (D.C. Cir. 1970), as reiterated in\\nUnited States v. Bryant, 442 F.2d 775, 777 (D.C. Cir. 1971), that\\n“the view expressed in Queen that the discretion [under Rule 32]\\nmust be exercised in each individual case . . . .” While Queen\\nand Bryant are clearly distinguishable from this case, as they\\napplied to the presentence report per se and not a\\nrecommendation, this case is sufficiently parallel to fall within\\ntheir precedential force. Therefore, I agree with the majority\\n\\n 2\\n\\nthat the district court erred in withholding the presentence\\nrecommendation without a case-specific rationale.\\n\\n Once the hurdle is crossed establishing error, I agree with\\nthe majority that we cannot say that that error was harmless\\nbeyond a reasonable doubt. I therefore, in the end, concur in the\\nmajority’s judgment.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4420530/\", \"author_raw\": \"SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"GARLAND"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"TATEL"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SENTELLE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"GARLAND\": \", Chief\", \"TATEL\": \", Circuit\", \"SENTELLE\": \", Senior Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4643277/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Jerry MCILWAIN, Appellant\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-26\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued March 19, 2019 Decided July 26, 2019\n\n No. 18-3087\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n APPELLEE\n\n v.\n\n JERRY MCILWAIN,\n APPELLANT\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the District of Columbia\n (No. 1:18-cr-00214-1)\n\n\n A.J. Kramer, Federal Public Defender, argued the cause and\nfiled the memorandum of law and fact and reply for appellant.\n\n Daniel J. Lenerz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause\nfor appellee. With him on the memorandum of law and fact\nwere Jessie K. Liu, U.S. Attorney, and Elizabeth Trosman,\nAssistant U.S. Attorney.\n\n Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, TATEL, Circuit Judge, and\nSENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.\n\n 2\n\n Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge GARLAND.\n\n Opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment\nfiled by Senior Circuit Judge SENTELLE.\n\n GARLAND, Chief Judge: Federal Rule of Criminal\nProcedure 32(e)(3) provides that, “by order in a case,” a district\ncourt “may direct the probation officer not to disclose to anyone\nother than the court the officer’s recommendation on the\nsentence.” Defendant Jerry McIlwain filed an unopposed\nmotion asking the district court to direct the probation officer to\ndisclose the sentencing recommendation in his case. The court\ndenied McIlwain’s request pursuant to its “policy” of “always\ntreat[ing]” the recommendations “as confidential.” 11/30/18\nSent’g Tr. 3 (App. 58). Rule 32(e)(3), however, requires a\ndistrict court to exercise discretion in deciding whether to\nwithhold the recommendation. Because that discretion must be\nbased on case-specific reasoning rather than on a uniform\npolicy, we vacate McIlwain’s sentence and remand for\nresentencing.\n\n I\n\n In June 2017, the Federal Bureau of Prisons released Jerry\nMcIlwain from detention in Cumberland, Maryland and directed\nhim to report to Hope Village, a halfway house in Washington,\nD.C., to serve the remaining ten months of his sentence.\nMcIlwain never reported to the halfway house, and the Bureau\nplaced him on escape status. About a year later, a federal grand\njury indicted McIlwain for escape, in violation of 18 U.S.C.\n§ 751(a). A magistrate judge issued a warrant for his arrest, and\nU.S. Marshals took him into custody soon thereafter.\n\n McIlwain pled guilty on October 3, 2018. In exchange for\nhis plea, the government agreed to ask for a sentence at the low\n\n 3\n\nend of the Guidelines range -- eight months -- and to allow\nMcIlwain to argue for a sentence of time served. McIlwain filed\na sentencing memorandum requesting time served -- about four\nmonths.\n\n On November 27, McIlwain filed an unopposed motion\nasking the district judge to order the probation officer to disclose\nthe sentencing recommendation, pursuant to Rule 32(e)(3). The\nrule states that, “[b]y local rule or by order in a case, the court\nmay direct the probation officer not to disclose to anyone other\nthan the court the officer’s recommendation on the sentence.”\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 32(e)(3). McIlwain noted that “[t]here is no\nsuch local rule in this district, nor has the court directed that the\nsentence recommendation not be disclosed.” Motion for\nDisclosure of Sent’g Rec. 1 (App. 35).\n\n McIlwain also pointed out that not merely was his motion\nunopposed, but both the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the U.S.\nProbation Office supported (and still support) the disclosure of\nsentencing recommendations as a matter of course. Id. at 1-2\n(App. 35-36); see Letter from Federal Public Defender A.J.\nKramer to Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell (May 15, 2017) (App.\n41) (confirming the U.S. Attorney’s continued support for\nroutine disclosure); Letter from Chief U.S. Probation Officer\nBrian D. Shaffer to Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell (Sept. 6, 2017)\n(“2017 Shaffer Letter”) (App. 39-40); Letter from U.S. Attorney\nEric H. Holder to Judge Thomas F. Hogan, Chair, District Court\nRules Committee (Sept. 22, 1995) (“1995 Holder Letter”) (App.\n49-50).\n\n Nonetheless, at the November 30, 2018 sentencing hearing,\nthe district judge denied McIlwain’s motion to disclose the\nrecommendation. 11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 2 (App. 57). After\nacknowledging that he had discretion in the matter, the judge\nexplained his decision as follows:\n\n 4\n\n Sentencing has become too complicated and the\n guidelines have become too complicated[,] . . . and I\n find . . . [the] experienced probation officers[’] . . .\n recommendations . . . very helpful . . . . I have been\n concerned and remain concerned that the candor of\n those recommendations would be affected by their\n disclosing them and having to answer for them to\n outside counsel. And because they’re officers of the\n court, I have always treated them as confidential and\n have always exercised my discretion to maintain their\n confidentiality and do not disclose them . . . , and so I\n have always maintained that policy myself and I have\n interpreted the rule to not require a judge to require . . .\n disclosure.\n\nId. at 3 (App. 58). The judge then concluded:\n\n I don’t think, in any particular individual case,\n [disclosure] would necessarily have any great effect,\n but the cumulative effect of the different relationship\n that I would have in particular with the probation\n officers and the candor of their recommendations and\n their ability to assist the Court in the sentencing\n process, I have consistently thought, would be greatly\n affected, and so I will deny the motion.\n\nId. at 3-4 (App. 58-59). Thereafter, the judge rejected\nMcIlwain’s request for time served and instead sentenced him\nto eight months, as the government had requested. Id. at 19\n(App. 74).\n\n McIlwain now appeals, raising a single argument: “The\ndistrict court improperly refused to disclose the sentencing\nrecommendation.” McIlwain Br. 9.\n\n 5\n\n II\n\n Rule 32(e)(3) provides:\n\n By local rule or by order in a case, the court may\n direct the probation officer not to disclose to anyone\n other than the court the officer’s recommendation on\n the sentence.\n\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 32(e)(3) (emphasis added). The notes of the\nAdvisory Committee on Criminal Rules make clear that the\nrule’s inverse is also true: If the court does not direct\nnondisclosure “in an individual case or in accordance with a\nlocal rule,” then “the recommendation . . . is subject to\ndisclosure.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32, advisory committee note to\n1994 amendment.1 Thus, the default position -- in the absence\nof a local rule or order in a case -- is disclosure. See Gov’t Br.\n8 (agreeing “that the default position of Rule 32(e)(3) is that the\nrecommendation must be disclosed” (internal quotation marks\nomitted)).\n\n That has not always been so. The rule governing\npresentence investigations was originally adopted in 1944 and,\nby 1966, provided that “[t]he court before imposing sentence\nmay disclose to the defendant or his counsel all or part of the\nmaterial contained in the report of the presentence\ninvestigation.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(2) (1966). The 1966 rule\ndid not specifically mention the sentencing recommendation at\nall, and it left the decision whether to disclose the presentence\nreport up to the district court. Both of those things remained\ntrue until the 1974 amendment, when the rule was changed to\n\n\n 1\n See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 64 n.6 (2002) (“In the\nabsence of a clear legislative mandate, the Advisory Committee Notes\nprovide a reliable source of insight into the meaning of a rule . . . .”).\n\n 6\n\nrequire that the district court “shall upon request permit the\ndefendant . . . to read the report of the presentence investigation\nexclusive of any recommendation as to sentence.” FED. R. CRIM.\nP. 32(c)(3) (1975) (emphasis added). In 1983, the requirement\nthat the defendant request the report was removed, making\ndisclosure of the report automatic. FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(3)(A)\n(1983). Left in place, however, was the bar against disclosing\nthe recommendation. Id.\n\n Finally, in 1994, the essence of the current rule was\nadopted: “Not less than 35 days before the sentencing\nhearing . . . the probation officer must furnish the presentence\nreport to the defendant, the defendant’s counsel, and the attorney\nfor the Government. The court may, by local rule or in\nindividual cases, direct that the probation officer not disclose the\nprobation officer’s recommendation, if any, on the sentence.”\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 32(b)(6)(A) (1994). In 2002, the text of that\nprovision was changed, solely for stylistic purposes, and the\nprovision was renumbered as Rule 32(e)(2) and (3). See FED. R.\nCRIM. P. 32, advisory committee note to 2002 amendment. The\ncurrent text of the second sentence just quoted now reads: “By\nlocal rule or by order in a case, the court may direct the\nprobation officer not to disclose to anyone other than the court\nthe officer’s recommendation on the sentence.” FED. R. CRIM.\nP. 32(e)(3).\n\n As this history shows, the defaults for both the report and\nthe recommendation have evolved over time. Disclosure of the\nreport was formerly optional, and disclosure of the\nrecommendation was prohibited. Now, disclosure of the report\nis mandatory, as is disclosure of the recommendation -- absent\na “local rule” or “order in a case.”\n\n The question before us, therefore, is whether a “local rule”\nor “order in a case” properly barred disclosure here. The answer\n\n 7\n\nto the “local rule” part of the question is easy. That term does\nnot refer to a rule governing proceedings before a single judge\n(often referred to in this district as a “standing order”). Rather,\nit refers to a rule, adopted by a majority of the judges of the\nrelevant district court, that governs proceedings before every\njudge of that court. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 57(a)(1).2 The U.S.\nDistrict Court for the District of Columbia has not adopted any\nlocal rule regarding disclosure of a probation officer’s\nsentencing recommendation. See Letter from Chief Judge Beryl\nA. Howell to Federal Public Defender A.J. Kramer (Sept. 20,\n2017) (App. 38). Thus, as the government acknowledges, the\ndistrict judge did not deny McIlwain’s motion for disclosure (or\ndirect nondisclosure) pursuant to the “local rule” provision.\nGov’t Br. 10.\n\n As both parties agree, however, the judge here did issue an\n“order in a case” -- namely, McIlwain’s case -- that effectively\ndirected the probation officer not to disclose the sentencing\nrecommendation. Gov’t Br. 12; Oral Arg. Tr. 5:17-21\n(McIlwain’s counsel); see 11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 4 (App. 59);\nMinute Order (11/30/18). The order, which denied McIlwain’s\nmotion for disclosure, had that effect because everyone\nconcerned understood the judge’s position to be that the\nprobation officer could not disclose the officer’s\n\n\n 2\n Rule 57(a)(1) provides:\n\n (1) Adopting Local Rules. Each district court acting by a\n majority of its district judges may, after giving appropriate\n public notice and an opportunity to comment, make and\n amend rules governing its practice. A local rule must be\n consistent with -- but not duplicative of -- federal statutes\n and rules adopted under 28 U.S.C. § 2072 . . . .\n\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 57(a)(1).\n\n 8\n\nrecommendation without an affirmative order. See 11/30/18\nSent’g Tr. 2 (App. 57); McIlwain Br. 4-5, 12. We therefore turn\nto McIlwain’s contention that the nondisclosure order was\nimproper.\n\n III\n\n Once again, Rule 32(e)(3) provides that, “[b]y order in a\ncase, the court may direct the probation officer not to\ndisclose . . . the officer’s recommendation on the sentence.”\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 32(e)(3) (emphasis added). “The word ‘may’\nclearly connotes discretion.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs.,\nInc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1931 (2016). And the 1994 Advisory\nCommittee notes confirm this reading: “Under th[e] new\nprovision . . . , the court has the discretion (in an individual case\nor in accordance with a local rule) to direct the probation officer\nto withhold any final recommendation.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32,\nadvisory committee note to 1994 amendment (emphasis added).\n\n Because the rule grants the district court discretion, it\nfollows that we review the court’s order for abuse of discretion.\nThis conforms with how we treat other federal rules providing\nthat a district court “may” do something: We have held that\nsuch rules authorize discretion and are reviewed for abuse of\ndiscretion.3 Both parties to this appeal agree that this is the\nstandard of review applicable to the district court’s order here.\n\n\n\n 3\n See, e.g., United States v. Cordova, 806 F.3d 1085, 1090 (D.C.\nCir. 2015) (Rule 16(d)(1): the court “may” grant protective orders);\nUnited States v. Mejia, 448 F.3d 436, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Rule 7(f):\nthe court “may” direct the government to file a bill of particulars);\nUnited States v. Ginyard, 444 F.3d 648, 651-53 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Rule\n23(b)(3): the court “may” permit an eleven-person jury to return a\nverdict).\n\n 9\n\nSee McIlwain Reply Br. 2, 4; Gov’t Br. vi, 7-8; Oral Arg. Tr.\n17:18-20 (government counsel).\n\n But before we can assess whether the district court abused\nits discretion, we must determine what discretion under Rule\n32(e)(3) entails. That question -- the meaning of a federal rule\nitself -- is one we decide de novo. See, e.g., United States v.\nGewin, 471 F.3d 197, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“A district court’s\ninterpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence is a question of\nlaw, which we review de novo.”); Handy v. Shaw, Bransford,\nVeilleux & Roth, 325 F.3d 346, 349 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“Whether\nthe lower court applied the proper legal standard in exercising\n[its] discretion . . . is a question of law reviewed de novo.”).\n\n We turn first to the scope of a district court’s discretion\nunder the rule. We then address the manner in which\nMcIlwain’s sentencing court exercised that discretion.\n\n A\n\n To determine the scope of the court’s discretion, we begin\nwith the text of the current rule, which (as relevant here)\nauthorizes an individual judge to direct nondisclosure “by order\nin a case.” The best reading of that language is that the order\nmust be based on something particular about the “case” at issue\n-- as distinct from an order governing all cases coming before an\nindividual judge. Had the drafters intended Rule 32 to authorize\nthat latter kind of order, they could easily have said so. They\ncould have accomplished that end either by simply leaving “in\na case” out of the provision or by providing for nondisclosure\npursuant to a judge’s standing order -- just as they expressly\nauthorized each federal district to adopt a nondisclosure policy\nby “local rule,” applicable to every judge and every case in the\ndistrict.\n\n 10\n\n This reading is confirmed by examining the text of the rule\nas it stood in 1994. As recounted in Part II above, that version\nof the rule stated: “The court may, by local rule or in individual\ncases, direct that the probation officer not disclose the probation\nofficer’s recommendation . . . .” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(b)(6)(A)\n(1994) (emphasis added). The reference to “in individual\ncases,” even more strongly than the current text’s reference to\n“in a case,” indicates that the drafters did not intend to authorize\nthe use of a standing order applicable to all of a judge’s cases.\nAnd the Advisory Committee notes make clear that the 2002\namendment that produced the current text was not intended to\nchange the meaning of the 1994 rule.4\n\n This reading is further confirmed by the 1994 Advisory\nCommittee notes, which expressly state that, “[u]nder th[is]\nprovision . . . , the court has the discretion (in an individual case\nor in accordance with a local rule) to direct the probation officer\nto withhold any final recommendation.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32,\nadvisory committee note to 1994 amendment (emphasis added).\nTo exercise “discretion” in an “individual” case, there must be\nsomething about that individual case that warrants the exercise\nof discretion. Accordingly, a policy of always barring\ndisclosure -- regardless of an “individual” case’s circumstances\n-- does not constitute the exercise of discretion authorized by\nRule 32.\n\n This reading likewise fits with how the Supreme Court\ndefines discretion. “[D]iscretion,” the Court has explained,\n\n\n 4\n FED. R. CRIM. P. 32, advisory committee note to 2002\namendment (“The language of Rule 32 has been amended as part of\nthe general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily\nunderstood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout\nthe rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only, except as\nnoted below [with respect to provisions not at issue here].”).\n\n 11\n\nentails a duty “to locate a just result in light of the circumstances\npeculiar to the case.” Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S.\n405, 421 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). And it also\nfits with the Court’s definition of what discretion is not: “The\nterm ‘discretion’ denotes the absence of a hard and fast rule.”\nLangnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 541 (1931).\n\n Finally, our reading is compelled by this circuit’s repeated\nholdings regarding an analogous provision of an earlier version\nof Rule 32 that governed permissive disclosure of presentence\nreports. As we also recounted in Part II, by 1966 the rule’s\nlanguage with respect to the presentence report closely\nresembled its current language regarding the probation officer’s\nrecommendation. It stated: “The court before imposing\nsentence may disclose to the defendant or his counsel all or part\nof the material contained in the report of the presentence\ninvestigation . . . .” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(2) (1966) (emphasis\nadded). Thereafter, we consistently interpreted this conferral of\ndiscretion to require that district judges rely on case-specific\nreasons when denying disclosure.\n\n In United States v. Queen, for example, the district court\nhad “refused disclosure of the presentence report pursuant to\n[its] general policy of non-disclosure, and without any reference\nto the need for disclosure or confidentiality in the circumstances\nof this particular case.” 435 F.2d 66, 67 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1970).\nWe held, to the contrary, that “the discretion called for by Rule\n32 is the exercise of discretion in individual cases, not the\ndiscretion of the trial judge to adopt a uniform policy of non-\ndisclosure in all cases irrespective of circumstances.” Id. at 67.\n\n In United States v. Bryant, the district court similarly had\ndenied, “consistently with the judge’s uniform policy,” a\ndefendant’s request to inspect the presentence report. 442 F.2d\n775, 776 (D.C. Cir. 1971). Adhering “to the view expressed in\n\n 12\n\nQueen that the discretion [under Rule 32] must be exercised in\neach individual case,” we held that the district court “did not\nproperly exercise its discretion in denying the request.” Id. at\n777, 776; accord United States v. Dockery, 447 F.2d 1178, 1184\n(D.C. Cir. 1971) (quoting Queen, 435 F.2d at 67, and Bryant,\n442 F.2d at 777-78); cf. Pillai v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 485 F.2d\n1018, 1027 n.27 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (“We have repeatedly held that\na trial judge, to be held to have properly exercised his discretion,\nmust necessarily have . . . knowingly made a selection of the\nlegal alternatives in relation to the facts of the particular\ncase . . . .” (citing Queen, 435 F.2d 66)).5\n\n In sum, these authorities make clear that a district court\nexercising its discretion to withhold a probation officer’s\nsentencing recommendation under Rule 32(e)(3) must ground\nthat decision in the circumstances of a particular case. The rule\n\n\n\n 5\n The Second Circuit took the same view of the rule. In United\nStates v. Brown, that court said:\n\n When the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were\n amended in 1966 to provide . . . that the sentencing court\n “may disclose” the pre-sentence report, it certainly was\n intended that the sentencing court exercise its discretion in\n each case. It is equally clear that when a judge states, as he\n did here, that in effect his policy is never to disclose\n presentence reports, that is not an exercise of discretion on\n an individual basis. Discretion under [then-]Rule 32(c)(2)\n must be exercised on a case-by-case basis, not by a blanket\n policy of non-disclosure.\n\n470 F.2d 285, 287-88 (2d Cir. 1972) (citing Bryant, 442 F.2d 775, as\nwell as cases from the Seventh and Eighth Circuits).\n\n 13\n\ndoes not grant the district court discretion to adopt a blanket\npolicy applicable to all sentencings that come before it.\n\n B\n\n With this understanding of discretion in hand, we next ask\nwhether the district court properly exercised its discretion in this\ncase. The government agrees that, under Rule 32(e)(3), an\nindividual judge may not adopt a “blanket policy” of\nnondisclosure that “applies in all cases.” Oral Arg. Tr. 18:13-\n22. It further agrees that nondisclosure requires “case-specific\nreason[s].” Id. at 18:1-9. It insists, however, that the district\ncourt found such case-specific reasons here. As to this last\npoint, we disagree.\n\n At sentencing, the district court made clear that it was\ndenying disclosure based on its own, blanket nondisclosure\npolicy:\n\n [B]ecause they’re officers of the court, I have always\n treated [the officers’ recommendations] as confidential\n and have always exercised my discretion to maintain\n their confidentiality and do not disclose them . . . , and\n so I have always maintained that policy myself and I\n have interpreted the rule to not require a judge to\n require . . . disclosure. So the motion for disclosure of\n their recommendation is denied.\n\n11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 3 (App. 58) (emphasis added). Moreover,\nthe court forthrightly acknowledged that its ruling was not based\non circumstances particular to McIlwain’s case:\n\n I don’t think, in any particular individual case,\n [disclosure] would necessarily have any great effect,\n but the cumulative effect of the different relationship\n\n 14\n\n that I would have in particular with the probation\n officers and the candor of their recommendations and\n their ability to assist the Court in the sentencing\n process, I have consistently thought, would be greatly\n affected, and so I will deny the motion.\n\nId. at 3-4 (App. 58-59) (emphasis added). To bar disclosure\n“always,” “consistently,” and pursuant to a “policy” is to\ncontravene Queen’s holding -- applicable to the current version\nof Rule 32 as well -- that “the discretion called for by Rule 32 is\nthe exercise of discretion in individual cases, not the discretion\nof the trial judge to adopt a uniform policy of non-disclosure in\nall cases irrespective of circumstances.” 435 F.3d at 67; accord\nBryant, 442 F.2d at 776.\n\n Notwithstanding the transcript quoted above, the\ngovernment maintains that the district court did rely on a case-\nspecific reason. This is the government’s argument: “The\ndistrict court’s conclusion that nondisclosure was necessary in\nMcIlwain’s particular case to avoid the ‘cumulative effect’ of\nrepeat disclosures [on the probation officers’ candor] constituted\nan adequate ‘specific reason[] for its denial in this case.’” Gov’t\nBr. 16 (quoting Bryant, 442 F.2d at 776). But the court made\nclear that, in its view, nondisclosure was required in every case,\nregardless of any case’s particular facts, in order to prevent such\na cumulative effect. See 11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 3 (App. 58) (“I\ndon’t think . . . any particular individual case . . . would\nnecessarily have any great effect, but the cumulative effect of\nthe different relationship that I would have . . . would be greatly\naffected . . . .”). And the government acknowledges that the\ncourt’s prevention-of-cumulative-effect rationale would in fact\napply in every case: “It’s a case-specific reason,” the\ngovernment says, “that would apply in all cases.” Oral Arg. Tr.\n19:9-10; see id. at 20:9-11 (government counsel’s\nacknowledgment that the judge “didn’t point to anything\n\n 15\n\nparticular about McIlwain’s case that made it different from\nother cases”).\n\n But a reason that applies in every case is not a case-specific\nreason. It is a uniform policy. And Rule 32 does not authorize\nan individual judge to issue a nondisclosure order on that basis.\n\n None of this is to say that the district court’s policy is\nunreasonable. The court defended its decision on the ground\nthat “sentencing has become too complicated” for “law\nclerks . . . to keep up with,” and that the views of “experienced\nprobation officers” are therefore “very helpful to the Court.”\n11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 3 (App. 58). The court feared that “the\ncandor of [the officers’] recommendations would be affected by\ntheir disclosing them and having to answer for them to outside\ncounsel.” Id. The court’s concerns are the same as those that\nanimated the pre-1994 version of Rule 32, which required the\ndistrict court to disclose the presentence report but barred\ndisclosure of “any recommendation as to sentence,” FED. R.\nCRIM. P. 32(c)(3)(A) (1974). See United States v. Peterson, 711\nF.3d 770, 776 (7th Cir. 2013) (“At the time of its enactment, the\npurpose behind [barring disclosure of the recommendation] was\nto allow probation officers the opportunity to provide a candid\nassessment of the defendant to the court and to protect the\neffectiveness of the probation officer in the supervisory\ncontext.” (citing FED. R. CRIM. P. 32, advisory committee note\nto 1974 amendment)).\n\n The opposing position is also reasonable. Both the\nprobation office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office support\ndisclosure. The probation office believes that routine disclosure\nof the recommendation has the potential to “strengthen[] the\nperception of the probation office’s independent role in the\n\n 16\n\nsentencing process.” 2017 Shaffer Letter (App. 40).6 The U.S.\nAttorney’s Office likewise “agree[s] that it’s good policy for\njudges to disclose the probation officer’s recommended\nsentences,” Oral Arg. Tr. 17:13-15, both because “an individual\nwho faces incarceration should be apprised of any sentencing\nrecommendation which may be considered by the court,” and\nbecause routine disclosure may benefit the government as well,\n1995 Holder Letter (App. 50). And as for McIlwain, he adds the\nconcern that an undisclosed recommendation could contain\nfactual misinformation or legal mistakes that the defendant\nwould be unable to rebut before sentencing. See McIlwain\nReply Br. 6-7; Letter from Federal Public Defender A.J. Kramer\nto Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts (July 21, 2014) (App. 47)\n(citing instances in which sentencing recommendations\ncontained incorrect information not included in the presentence\nreports).\n\n This policy debate, however, is beside the point. As both\nparties agree, the 1994 amendment “change[d]” the former rule,\nadopting instead a default rule of disclosure. Gov’t Br. 9; see\nMcIlwain Br. 11-12. An individual district judge can override\nthat default rule only by exercising case-specific discretion, not\nby following a blanket policy of nondisclosure -- regardless of\nthe reasonableness of the concerns that underlie that policy. By\nresting its decision on a blanket policy, rather than the facts of\nMcIlwain’s individual case, the district court acted outside of the\ndiscretion conferred by Rule 32.7\n\n\n 6\n The probation office also reported that it has found “no evidence\nto support the position that probation officer safety is compromised\nfrom routine disclosure” of the recommendation. 2017 Shaffer Letter\n(App. 39).\n 7\n In addition to arguing that the district court abused its discretion\nby failing to grant his motion for disclosure, McIlwain argues that\n\n 17\n\n IV\n\n Although the district court erred in denying McIlwain’s\nmotion on the basis of a blanket policy, we must nonetheless\naffirm the court’s judgment if that error was harmless. See FED.\nR. CRIM. P. 52(a). In the sentencing context, an “error [is]\nharmless . . . [if] the error did not affect the district court’s\nselection of the sentence imposed.” Williams v. United States,\n503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992). But “[i]f we ha[ve] any doubt as to\nwhether the erroneous understanding the District Court\nexpressed . . . affected the District Court’s sentencing decision,\nwe w[ill] not hold the error to be harmless.” United States v.\nAyers, 795 F.3d 168, 176 (D.C. Cir. 2015).\n\n The government argues that “[t]here is no indication that the\ndistrict court relied on the probation officer’s sentencing\nrecommendation in imposing its sentence.” Gov’t Br. 17.\nMaybe so. But the government bears the burden of showing that\nthe district court did not rely on the recommendation. See\nUnited States v. Powell, 334 F.3d 42, 45 (D.C. Cir. 2003)\n(explaining that the harmless error rule “places the ‘burden of\nshowing the absence of prejudice’ on the government” (quoting\nUnited States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 741 (1993))); see also\nWilliams, 503 U.S. at 203 (“If the party defending the sentence\npersuades the court of appeals that the district court would have\nimposed the same sentence absent the erroneous factor, then a\nremand is not required . . . and the court of appeals may affirm\nthe sentence . . . .” (emphasis added)).\n\n\n\nRule 32 requires the probation officer to disclose the sentencing\nrecommendation automatically, without a motion by the defendant.\nMcIlwain Reply Br. 1-2. Because McIlwain did file a motion, which\nwe hold was erroneously denied, we need not address this secondary\nargument.\n\n 18\n\n In this case, the district court did not itself give any\nindication of nonreliance. To the contrary, the judge said\nthat “I find . . . [the] experienced probation officers[’]\nrecommendations . . . very helpful” as a general matter.\n11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 3 (App. 58). Nor can we conclude that there\nwas no misinformation, factual or legal, in the recommendation.\nAs we said with respect to the undisclosed presentence report in\nBryant, “[i]t is difficult to see how it can be known whether a\ncourt has relied upon misinformation unless the information is\ndisclosed to the defendant or his counsel.” 442 F.2d at 778.\nAccordingly, we cannot say that the district court’s error did not\naffect the sentence it imposed.\n\n V\n\n For the foregoing reasons, we vacate McIlwain’s sentence\nand remand for resentencing. See Bryant, 442 F.2d at 778-79;\nBrown, 470 F.2d at 288. On remand, the district court must\ndisclose the probation officer’s sentencing recommendation\nunless it finds that case-specific reasons justify nondisclosure.\n\n So ordered.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Jerry MCILWAIN, Appellant\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-26\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued March 19, 2019 Decided July 26, 2019\\n\\n No. 18-3087\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n APPELLEE\\n\\n v.\\n\\n JERRY MCILWAIN,\\n APPELLANT\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the District of Columbia\\n (No. 1:18-cr-00214-1)\\n\\n\\n A.J. Kramer, Federal Public Defender, argued the cause and\\nfiled the memorandum of law and fact and reply for appellant.\\n\\n Daniel J. Lenerz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause\\nfor appellee. With him on the memorandum of law and fact\\nwere Jessie K. Liu, U.S. Attorney, and Elizabeth Trosman,\\nAssistant U.S. Attorney.\\n\\n Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, TATEL, Circuit Judge, and\\nSENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.\\n\\n 2\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge GARLAND.\\n\\n Opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment\\nfiled by Senior Circuit Judge SENTELLE.\\n\\n GARLAND, Chief Judge: Federal Rule of Criminal\\nProcedure 32(e)(3) provides that, “by order in a case,” a district\\ncourt “may direct the probation officer not to disclose to anyone\\nother than the court the officer’s recommendation on the\\nsentence.” Defendant Jerry McIlwain filed an unopposed\\nmotion asking the district court to direct the probation officer to\\ndisclose the sentencing recommendation in his case. The court\\ndenied McIlwain’s request pursuant to its “policy” of “always\\ntreat[ing]” the recommendations “as confidential.” 11/30/18\\nSent’g Tr. 3 (App. 58). Rule 32(e)(3), however, requires a\\ndistrict court to exercise discretion in deciding whether to\\nwithhold the recommendation. Because that discretion must be\\nbased on case-specific reasoning rather than on a uniform\\npolicy, we vacate McIlwain’s sentence and remand for\\nresentencing.\\n\\n I\\n\\n In June 2017, the Federal Bureau of Prisons released Jerry\\nMcIlwain from detention in Cumberland, Maryland and directed\\nhim to report to Hope Village, a halfway house in Washington,\\nD.C., to serve the remaining ten months of his sentence.\\nMcIlwain never reported to the halfway house, and the Bureau\\nplaced him on escape status. About a year later, a federal grand\\njury indicted McIlwain for escape, in violation of 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 751(a). A magistrate judge issued a warrant for his arrest, and\\nU.S. Marshals took him into custody soon thereafter.\\n\\n McIlwain pled guilty on October 3, 2018. In exchange for\\nhis plea, the government agreed to ask for a sentence at the low\\n\\n 3\\n\\nend of the Guidelines range -- eight months -- and to allow\\nMcIlwain to argue for a sentence of time served. McIlwain filed\\na sentencing memorandum requesting time served -- about four\\nmonths.\\n\\n On November 27, McIlwain filed an unopposed motion\\nasking the district judge to order the probation officer to disclose\\nthe sentencing recommendation, pursuant to Rule 32(e)(3). The\\nrule states that, “[b]y local rule or by order in a case, the court\\nmay direct the probation officer not to disclose to anyone other\\nthan the court the officer’s recommendation on the sentence.”\\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 32(e)(3). McIlwain noted that “[t]here is no\\nsuch local rule in this district, nor has the court directed that the\\nsentence recommendation not be disclosed.” Motion for\\nDisclosure of Sent’g Rec. 1 (App. 35).\\n\\n McIlwain also pointed out that not merely was his motion\\nunopposed, but both the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the U.S.\\nProbation Office supported (and still support) the disclosure of\\nsentencing recommendations as a matter of course. Id. at 1-2\\n(App. 35-36); see Letter from Federal Public Defender A.J.\\nKramer to Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell (May 15, 2017) (App.\\n41) (confirming the U.S. Attorney’s continued support for\\nroutine disclosure); Letter from Chief U.S. Probation Officer\\nBrian D. Shaffer to Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell (Sept. 6, 2017)\\n(“2017 Shaffer Letter”) (App. 39-40); Letter from U.S. Attorney\\nEric H. Holder to Judge Thomas F. Hogan, Chair, District Court\\nRules Committee (Sept. 22, 1995) (“1995 Holder Letter”) (App.\\n49-50).\\n\\n Nonetheless, at the November 30, 2018 sentencing hearing,\\nthe district judge denied McIlwain’s motion to disclose the\\nrecommendation. 11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 2 (App. 57). After\\nacknowledging that he had discretion in the matter, the judge\\nexplained his decision as follows:\\n\\n 4\\n\\n Sentencing has become too complicated and the\\n guidelines have become too complicated[,] . . . and I\\n find . . . [the] experienced probation officers[’] . . .\\n recommendations . . . very helpful . . . . I have been\\n concerned and remain concerned that the candor of\\n those recommendations would be affected by their\\n disclosing them and having to answer for them to\\n outside counsel. And because they’re officers of the\\n court, I have always treated them as confidential and\\n have always exercised my discretion to maintain their\\n confidentiality and do not disclose them . . . , and so I\\n have always maintained that policy myself and I have\\n interpreted the rule to not require a judge to require . . .\\n disclosure.\\n\\nId. at 3 (App. 58). The judge then concluded:\\n\\n I don’t think, in any particular individual case,\\n [disclosure] would necessarily have any great effect,\\n but the cumulative effect of the different relationship\\n that I would have in particular with the probation\\n officers and the candor of their recommendations and\\n their ability to assist the Court in the sentencing\\n process, I have consistently thought, would be greatly\\n affected, and so I will deny the motion.\\n\\nId. at 3-4 (App. 58-59). Thereafter, the judge rejected\\nMcIlwain’s request for time served and instead sentenced him\\nto eight months, as the government had requested. Id. at 19\\n(App. 74).\\n\\n McIlwain now appeals, raising a single argument: “The\\ndistrict court improperly refused to disclose the sentencing\\nrecommendation.” McIlwain Br. 9.\\n\\n 5\\n\\n II\\n\\n Rule 32(e)(3) provides:\\n\\n By local rule or by order in a case, the court may\\n direct the probation officer not to disclose to anyone\\n other than the court the officer’s recommendation on\\n the sentence.\\n\\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 32(e)(3) (emphasis added). The notes of the\\nAdvisory Committee on Criminal Rules make clear that the\\nrule’s inverse is also true: If the court does not direct\\nnondisclosure “in an individual case or in accordance with a\\nlocal rule,” then “the recommendation . . . is subject to\\ndisclosure.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32, advisory committee note to\\n1994 amendment.1 Thus, the default position -- in the absence\\nof a local rule or order in a case -- is disclosure. See Gov’t Br.\\n8 (agreeing “that the default position of Rule 32(e)(3) is that the\\nrecommendation must be disclosed” (internal quotation marks\\nomitted)).\\n\\n That has not always been so. The rule governing\\npresentence investigations was originally adopted in 1944 and,\\nby 1966, provided that “[t]he court before imposing sentence\\nmay disclose to the defendant or his counsel all or part of the\\nmaterial contained in the report of the presentence\\ninvestigation.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(2) (1966). The 1966 rule\\ndid not specifically mention the sentencing recommendation at\\nall, and it left the decision whether to disclose the presentence\\nreport up to the district court. Both of those things remained\\ntrue until the 1974 amendment, when the rule was changed to\\n\\n\\n 1\\n See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 64 n.6 (2002) (“In the\\nabsence of a clear legislative mandate, the Advisory Committee Notes\\nprovide a reliable source of insight into the meaning of a rule . . . .”).\\n\\n 6\\n\\nrequire that the district court “shall upon request permit the\\ndefendant . . . to read the report of the presentence investigation\\nexclusive of any recommendation as to sentence.” FED. R. CRIM.\\nP. 32(c)(3) (1975) (emphasis added). In 1983, the requirement\\nthat the defendant request the report was removed, making\\ndisclosure of the report automatic. FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(3)(A)\\n(1983). Left in place, however, was the bar against disclosing\\nthe recommendation. Id.\\n\\n Finally, in 1994, the essence of the current rule was\\nadopted: “Not less than 35 days before the sentencing\\nhearing . . . the probation officer must furnish the presentence\\nreport to the defendant, the defendant’s counsel, and the attorney\\nfor the Government. The court may, by local rule or in\\nindividual cases, direct that the probation officer not disclose the\\nprobation officer’s recommendation, if any, on the sentence.”\\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 32(b)(6)(A) (1994). In 2002, the text of that\\nprovision was changed, solely for stylistic purposes, and the\\nprovision was renumbered as Rule 32(e)(2) and (3). See FED. R.\\nCRIM. P. 32, advisory committee note to 2002 amendment. The\\ncurrent text of the second sentence just quoted now reads: “By\\nlocal rule or by order in a case, the court may direct the\\nprobation officer not to disclose to anyone other than the court\\nthe officer’s recommendation on the sentence.” FED. R. CRIM.\\nP. 32(e)(3).\\n\\n As this history shows, the defaults for both the report and\\nthe recommendation have evolved over time. Disclosure of the\\nreport was formerly optional, and disclosure of the\\nrecommendation was prohibited. Now, disclosure of the report\\nis mandatory, as is disclosure of the recommendation -- absent\\na “local rule” or “order in a case.”\\n\\n The question before us, therefore, is whether a “local rule”\\nor “order in a case” properly barred disclosure here. The answer\\n\\n 7\\n\\nto the “local rule” part of the question is easy. That term does\\nnot refer to a rule governing proceedings before a single judge\\n(often referred to in this district as a “standing order”). Rather,\\nit refers to a rule, adopted by a majority of the judges of the\\nrelevant district court, that governs proceedings before every\\njudge of that court. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 57(a)(1).2 The U.S.\\nDistrict Court for the District of Columbia has not adopted any\\nlocal rule regarding disclosure of a probation officer’s\\nsentencing recommendation. See Letter from Chief Judge Beryl\\nA. Howell to Federal Public Defender A.J. Kramer (Sept. 20,\\n2017) (App. 38). Thus, as the government acknowledges, the\\ndistrict judge did not deny McIlwain’s motion for disclosure (or\\ndirect nondisclosure) pursuant to the “local rule” provision.\\nGov’t Br. 10.\\n\\n As both parties agree, however, the judge here did issue an\\n“order in a case” -- namely, McIlwain’s case -- that effectively\\ndirected the probation officer not to disclose the sentencing\\nrecommendation. Gov’t Br. 12; Oral Arg. Tr. 5:17-21\\n(McIlwain’s counsel); see 11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 4 (App. 59);\\nMinute Order (11/30/18). The order, which denied McIlwain’s\\nmotion for disclosure, had that effect because everyone\\nconcerned understood the judge’s position to be that the\\nprobation officer could not disclose the officer’s\\n\\n\\n 2\\n Rule 57(a)(1) provides:\\n\\n (1) Adopting Local Rules. Each district court acting by a\\n majority of its district judges may, after giving appropriate\\n public notice and an opportunity to comment, make and\\n amend rules governing its practice. A local rule must be\\n consistent with -- but not duplicative of -- federal statutes\\n and rules adopted under 28 U.S.C. § 2072 . . . .\\n\\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 57(a)(1).\\n\\n 8\\n\\nrecommendation without an affirmative order. See 11/30/18\\nSent’g Tr. 2 (App. 57); McIlwain Br. 4-5, 12. We therefore turn\\nto McIlwain’s contention that the nondisclosure order was\\nimproper.\\n\\n III\\n\\n Once again, Rule 32(e)(3) provides that, “[b]y order in a\\ncase, the court may direct the probation officer not to\\ndisclose . . . the officer’s recommendation on the sentence.”\\nFED. R. CRIM. P. 32(e)(3) (emphasis added). “The word ‘may’\\nclearly connotes discretion.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs.,\\nInc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1931 (2016). And the 1994 Advisory\\nCommittee notes confirm this reading: “Under th[e] new\\nprovision . . . , the court has the discretion (in an individual case\\nor in accordance with a local rule) to direct the probation officer\\nto withhold any final recommendation.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32,\\nadvisory committee note to 1994 amendment (emphasis added).\\n\\n Because the rule grants the district court discretion, it\\nfollows that we review the court’s order for abuse of discretion.\\nThis conforms with how we treat other federal rules providing\\nthat a district court “may” do something: We have held that\\nsuch rules authorize discretion and are reviewed for abuse of\\ndiscretion.3 Both parties to this appeal agree that this is the\\nstandard of review applicable to the district court’s order here.\\n\\n\\n\\n 3\\n See, e.g., United States v. Cordova, 806 F.3d 1085, 1090 (D.C.\\nCir. 2015) (Rule 16(d)(1): the court “may” grant protective orders);\\nUnited States v. Mejia, 448 F.3d 436, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Rule 7(f):\\nthe court “may” direct the government to file a bill of particulars);\\nUnited States v. Ginyard, 444 F.3d 648, 651-53 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Rule\\n23(b)(3): the court “may” permit an eleven-person jury to return a\\nverdict).\\n\\n 9\\n\\nSee McIlwain Reply Br. 2, 4; Gov’t Br. vi, 7-8; Oral Arg. Tr.\\n17:18-20 (government counsel).\\n\\n But before we can assess whether the district court abused\\nits discretion, we must determine what discretion under Rule\\n32(e)(3) entails. That question -- the meaning of a federal rule\\nitself -- is one we decide de novo. See, e.g., United States v.\\nGewin, 471 F.3d 197, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“A district court’s\\ninterpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence is a question of\\nlaw, which we review de novo.”); Handy v. Shaw, Bransford,\\nVeilleux & Roth, 325 F.3d 346, 349 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“Whether\\nthe lower court applied the proper legal standard in exercising\\n[its] discretion . . . is a question of law reviewed de novo.”).\\n\\n We turn first to the scope of a district court’s discretion\\nunder the rule. We then address the manner in which\\nMcIlwain’s sentencing court exercised that discretion.\\n\\n A\\n\\n To determine the scope of the court’s discretion, we begin\\nwith the text of the current rule, which (as relevant here)\\nauthorizes an individual judge to direct nondisclosure “by order\\nin a case.” The best reading of that language is that the order\\nmust be based on something particular about the “case” at issue\\n-- as distinct from an order governing all cases coming before an\\nindividual judge. Had the drafters intended Rule 32 to authorize\\nthat latter kind of order, they could easily have said so. They\\ncould have accomplished that end either by simply leaving “in\\na case” out of the provision or by providing for nondisclosure\\npursuant to a judge’s standing order -- just as they expressly\\nauthorized each federal district to adopt a nondisclosure policy\\nby “local rule,” applicable to every judge and every case in the\\ndistrict.\\n\\n 10\\n\\n This reading is confirmed by examining the text of the rule\\nas it stood in 1994. As recounted in Part II above, that version\\nof the rule stated: “The court may, by local rule or in individual\\ncases, direct that the probation officer not disclose the probation\\nofficer’s recommendation . . . .” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(b)(6)(A)\\n(1994) (emphasis added). The reference to “in individual\\ncases,” even more strongly than the current text’s reference to\\n“in a case,” indicates that the drafters did not intend to authorize\\nthe use of a standing order applicable to all of a judge’s cases.\\nAnd the Advisory Committee notes make clear that the 2002\\namendment that produced the current text was not intended to\\nchange the meaning of the 1994 rule.4\\n\\n This reading is further confirmed by the 1994 Advisory\\nCommittee notes, which expressly state that, “[u]nder th[is]\\nprovision . . . , the court has the discretion (in an individual case\\nor in accordance with a local rule) to direct the probation officer\\nto withhold any final recommendation.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32,\\nadvisory committee note to 1994 amendment (emphasis added).\\nTo exercise “discretion” in an “individual” case, there must be\\nsomething about that individual case that warrants the exercise\\nof discretion. Accordingly, a policy of always barring\\ndisclosure -- regardless of an “individual” case’s circumstances\\n-- does not constitute the exercise of discretion authorized by\\nRule 32.\\n\\n This reading likewise fits with how the Supreme Court\\ndefines discretion. “[D]iscretion,” the Court has explained,\\n\\n\\n 4\\n FED. R. CRIM. P. 32, advisory committee note to 2002\\namendment (“The language of Rule 32 has been amended as part of\\nthe general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily\\nunderstood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout\\nthe rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only, except as\\nnoted below [with respect to provisions not at issue here].”).\\n\\n 11\\n\\nentails a duty “to locate a just result in light of the circumstances\\npeculiar to the case.” Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S.\\n405, 421 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). And it also\\nfits with the Court’s definition of what discretion is not: “The\\nterm ‘discretion’ denotes the absence of a hard and fast rule.”\\nLangnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 541 (1931).\\n\\n Finally, our reading is compelled by this circuit’s repeated\\nholdings regarding an analogous provision of an earlier version\\nof Rule 32 that governed permissive disclosure of presentence\\nreports. As we also recounted in Part II, by 1966 the rule’s\\nlanguage with respect to the presentence report closely\\nresembled its current language regarding the probation officer’s\\nrecommendation. It stated: “The court before imposing\\nsentence may disclose to the defendant or his counsel all or part\\nof the material contained in the report of the presentence\\ninvestigation . . . .” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(2) (1966) (emphasis\\nadded). Thereafter, we consistently interpreted this conferral of\\ndiscretion to require that district judges rely on case-specific\\nreasons when denying disclosure.\\n\\n In United States v. Queen, for example, the district court\\nhad “refused disclosure of the presentence report pursuant to\\n[its] general policy of non-disclosure, and without any reference\\nto the need for disclosure or confidentiality in the circumstances\\nof this particular case.” 435 F.2d 66, 67 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1970).\\nWe held, to the contrary, that “the discretion called for by Rule\\n32 is the exercise of discretion in individual cases, not the\\ndiscretion of the trial judge to adopt a uniform policy of non-\\ndisclosure in all cases irrespective of circumstances.” Id. at 67.\\n\\n In United States v. Bryant, the district court similarly had\\ndenied, “consistently with the judge’s uniform policy,” a\\ndefendant’s request to inspect the presentence report. 442 F.2d\\n775, 776 (D.C. Cir. 1971). Adhering “to the view expressed in\\n\\n 12\\n\\nQueen that the discretion [under Rule 32] must be exercised in\\neach individual case,” we held that the district court “did not\\nproperly exercise its discretion in denying the request.” Id. at\\n777, 776; accord United States v. Dockery, 447 F.2d 1178, 1184\\n(D.C. Cir. 1971) (quoting Queen, 435 F.2d at 67, and Bryant,\\n442 F.2d at 777-78); cf. Pillai v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 485 F.2d\\n1018, 1027 n.27 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (“We have repeatedly held that\\na trial judge, to be held to have properly exercised his discretion,\\nmust necessarily have . . . knowingly made a selection of the\\nlegal alternatives in relation to the facts of the particular\\ncase . . . .” (citing Queen, 435 F.2d 66)).5\\n\\n In sum, these authorities make clear that a district court\\nexercising its discretion to withhold a probation officer’s\\nsentencing recommendation under Rule 32(e)(3) must ground\\nthat decision in the circumstances of a particular case. The rule\\n\\n\\n\\n 5\\n The Second Circuit took the same view of the rule. In United\\nStates v. Brown, that court said:\\n\\n When the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were\\n amended in 1966 to provide . . . that the sentencing court\\n “may disclose” the pre-sentence report, it certainly was\\n intended that the sentencing court exercise its discretion in\\n each case. It is equally clear that when a judge states, as he\\n did here, that in effect his policy is never to disclose\\n presentence reports, that is not an exercise of discretion on\\n an individual basis. Discretion under [then-]Rule 32(c)(2)\\n must be exercised on a case-by-case basis, not by a blanket\\n policy of non-disclosure.\\n\\n470 F.2d 285, 287-88 (2d Cir. 1972) (citing Bryant, 442 F.2d 775, as\\nwell as cases from the Seventh and Eighth Circuits).\\n\\n 13\\n\\ndoes not grant the district court discretion to adopt a blanket\\npolicy applicable to all sentencings that come before it.\\n\\n B\\n\\n With this understanding of discretion in hand, we next ask\\nwhether the district court properly exercised its discretion in this\\ncase. The government agrees that, under Rule 32(e)(3), an\\nindividual judge may not adopt a “blanket policy” of\\nnondisclosure that “applies in all cases.” Oral Arg. Tr. 18:13-\\n22. It further agrees that nondisclosure requires “case-specific\\nreason[s].” Id. at 18:1-9. It insists, however, that the district\\ncourt found such case-specific reasons here. As to this last\\npoint, we disagree.\\n\\n At sentencing, the district court made clear that it was\\ndenying disclosure based on its own, blanket nondisclosure\\npolicy:\\n\\n [B]ecause they’re officers of the court, I have always\\n treated [the officers’ recommendations] as confidential\\n and have always exercised my discretion to maintain\\n their confidentiality and do not disclose them . . . , and\\n so I have always maintained that policy myself and I\\n have interpreted the rule to not require a judge to\\n require . . . disclosure. So the motion for disclosure of\\n their recommendation is denied.\\n\\n11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 3 (App. 58) (emphasis added). Moreover,\\nthe court forthrightly acknowledged that its ruling was not based\\non circumstances particular to McIlwain’s case:\\n\\n I don’t think, in any particular individual case,\\n [disclosure] would necessarily have any great effect,\\n but the cumulative effect of the different relationship\\n\\n 14\\n\\n that I would have in particular with the probation\\n officers and the candor of their recommendations and\\n their ability to assist the Court in the sentencing\\n process, I have consistently thought, would be greatly\\n affected, and so I will deny the motion.\\n\\nId. at 3-4 (App. 58-59) (emphasis added). To bar disclosure\\n“always,” “consistently,” and pursuant to a “policy” is to\\ncontravene Queen’s holding -- applicable to the current version\\nof Rule 32 as well -- that “the discretion called for by Rule 32 is\\nthe exercise of discretion in individual cases, not the discretion\\nof the trial judge to adopt a uniform policy of non-disclosure in\\nall cases irrespective of circumstances.” 435 F.3d at 67; accord\\nBryant, 442 F.2d at 776.\\n\\n Notwithstanding the transcript quoted above, the\\ngovernment maintains that the district court did rely on a case-\\nspecific reason. This is the government’s argument: “The\\ndistrict court’s conclusion that nondisclosure was necessary in\\nMcIlwain’s particular case to avoid the ‘cumulative effect’ of\\nrepeat disclosures [on the probation officers’ candor] constituted\\nan adequate ‘specific reason[] for its denial in this case.’” Gov’t\\nBr. 16 (quoting Bryant, 442 F.2d at 776). But the court made\\nclear that, in its view, nondisclosure was required in every case,\\nregardless of any case’s particular facts, in order to prevent such\\na cumulative effect. See 11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 3 (App. 58) (“I\\ndon’t think . . . any particular individual case . . . would\\nnecessarily have any great effect, but the cumulative effect of\\nthe different relationship that I would have . . . would be greatly\\naffected . . . .”). And the government acknowledges that the\\ncourt’s prevention-of-cumulative-effect rationale would in fact\\napply in every case: “It’s a case-specific reason,” the\\ngovernment says, “that would apply in all cases.” Oral Arg. Tr.\\n19:9-10; see id. at 20:9-11 (government counsel’s\\nacknowledgment that the judge “didn’t point to anything\\n\\n 15\\n\\nparticular about McIlwain’s case that made it different from\\nother cases”).\\n\\n But a reason that applies in every case is not a case-specific\\nreason. It is a uniform policy. And Rule 32 does not authorize\\nan individual judge to issue a nondisclosure order on that basis.\\n\\n None of this is to say that the district court’s policy is\\nunreasonable. The court defended its decision on the ground\\nthat “sentencing has become too complicated” for “law\\nclerks . . . to keep up with,” and that the views of “experienced\\nprobation officers” are therefore “very helpful to the Court.”\\n11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 3 (App. 58). The court feared that “the\\ncandor of [the officers’] recommendations would be affected by\\ntheir disclosing them and having to answer for them to outside\\ncounsel.” Id. The court’s concerns are the same as those that\\nanimated the pre-1994 version of Rule 32, which required the\\ndistrict court to disclose the presentence report but barred\\ndisclosure of “any recommendation as to sentence,” FED. R.\\nCRIM. P. 32(c)(3)(A) (1974). See United States v. Peterson, 711\\nF.3d 770, 776 (7th Cir. 2013) (“At the time of its enactment, the\\npurpose behind [barring disclosure of the recommendation] was\\nto allow probation officers the opportunity to provide a candid\\nassessment of the defendant to the court and to protect the\\neffectiveness of the probation officer in the supervisory\\ncontext.” (citing FED. R. CRIM. P. 32, advisory committee note\\nto 1974 amendment)).\\n\\n The opposing position is also reasonable. Both the\\nprobation office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office support\\ndisclosure. The probation office believes that routine disclosure\\nof the recommendation has the potential to “strengthen[] the\\nperception of the probation office’s independent role in the\\n\\n 16\\n\\nsentencing process.” 2017 Shaffer Letter (App. 40).6 The U.S.\\nAttorney’s Office likewise “agree[s] that it’s good policy for\\njudges to disclose the probation officer’s recommended\\nsentences,” Oral Arg. Tr. 17:13-15, both because “an individual\\nwho faces incarceration should be apprised of any sentencing\\nrecommendation which may be considered by the court,” and\\nbecause routine disclosure may benefit the government as well,\\n1995 Holder Letter (App. 50). And as for McIlwain, he adds the\\nconcern that an undisclosed recommendation could contain\\nfactual misinformation or legal mistakes that the defendant\\nwould be unable to rebut before sentencing. See McIlwain\\nReply Br. 6-7; Letter from Federal Public Defender A.J. Kramer\\nto Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts (July 21, 2014) (App. 47)\\n(citing instances in which sentencing recommendations\\ncontained incorrect information not included in the presentence\\nreports).\\n\\n This policy debate, however, is beside the point. As both\\nparties agree, the 1994 amendment “change[d]” the former rule,\\nadopting instead a default rule of disclosure. Gov’t Br. 9; see\\nMcIlwain Br. 11-12. An individual district judge can override\\nthat default rule only by exercising case-specific discretion, not\\nby following a blanket policy of nondisclosure -- regardless of\\nthe reasonableness of the concerns that underlie that policy. By\\nresting its decision on a blanket policy, rather than the facts of\\nMcIlwain’s individual case, the district court acted outside of the\\ndiscretion conferred by Rule 32.7\\n\\n\\n 6\\n The probation office also reported that it has found “no evidence\\nto support the position that probation officer safety is compromised\\nfrom routine disclosure” of the recommendation. 2017 Shaffer Letter\\n(App. 39).\\n 7\\n In addition to arguing that the district court abused its discretion\\nby failing to grant his motion for disclosure, McIlwain argues that\\n\\n 17\\n\\n IV\\n\\n Although the district court erred in denying McIlwain’s\\nmotion on the basis of a blanket policy, we must nonetheless\\naffirm the court’s judgment if that error was harmless. See FED.\\nR. CRIM. P. 52(a). In the sentencing context, an “error [is]\\nharmless . . . [if] the error did not affect the district court’s\\nselection of the sentence imposed.” Williams v. United States,\\n503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992). But “[i]f we ha[ve] any doubt as to\\nwhether the erroneous understanding the District Court\\nexpressed . . . affected the District Court’s sentencing decision,\\nwe w[ill] not hold the error to be harmless.” United States v.\\nAyers, 795 F.3d 168, 176 (D.C. Cir. 2015).\\n\\n The government argues that “[t]here is no indication that the\\ndistrict court relied on the probation officer’s sentencing\\nrecommendation in imposing its sentence.” Gov’t Br. 17.\\nMaybe so. But the government bears the burden of showing that\\nthe district court did not rely on the recommendation. See\\nUnited States v. Powell, 334 F.3d 42, 45 (D.C. Cir. 2003)\\n(explaining that the harmless error rule “places the ‘burden of\\nshowing the absence of prejudice’ on the government” (quoting\\nUnited States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 741 (1993))); see also\\nWilliams, 503 U.S. at 203 (“If the party defending the sentence\\npersuades the court of appeals that the district court would have\\nimposed the same sentence absent the erroneous factor, then a\\nremand is not required . . . and the court of appeals may affirm\\nthe sentence . . . .” (emphasis added)).\\n\\n\\n\\nRule 32 requires the probation officer to disclose the sentencing\\nrecommendation automatically, without a motion by the defendant.\\nMcIlwain Reply Br. 1-2. Because McIlwain did file a motion, which\\nwe hold was erroneously denied, we need not address this secondary\\nargument.\\n\\n 18\\n\\n In this case, the district court did not itself give any\\nindication of nonreliance. To the contrary, the judge said\\nthat “I find . . . [the] experienced probation officers[’]\\nrecommendations . . . very helpful” as a general matter.\\n11/30/18 Sent’g Tr. 3 (App. 58). Nor can we conclude that there\\nwas no misinformation, factual or legal, in the recommendation.\\nAs we said with respect to the undisclosed presentence report in\\nBryant, “[i]t is difficult to see how it can be known whether a\\ncourt has relied upon misinformation unless the information is\\ndisclosed to the defendant or his counsel.” 442 F.2d at 778.\\nAccordingly, we cannot say that the district court’s error did not\\naffect the sentence it imposed.\\n\\n V\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, we vacate McIlwain’s sentence\\nand remand for resentencing. See Bryant, 442 F.2d at 778-79;\\nBrown, 470 F.2d at 288. On remand, the district court must\\ndisclose the probation officer’s sentencing recommendation\\nunless it finds that case-specific reasons justify nondisclosure.\\n\\n So ordered.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3473,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4643278,"string":"4,643,278"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"In Re: Sealed Case"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"In re: Sealed Case"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-26"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-1212"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Griffith, Srinivasan, Ginsburg\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge GINSBURG.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued April 2, 2019 Decided July 26, 2019\\n\\n No. 17-1212\\n\\n IN RE: SEALED CASE\\n ______\\n\\n On Appeal from the Order of the\\n United States Tax Court\\n ______\\n\\n\\n Michael F. Qian, appointed by the court, argued the cause\\nas amicus curiae in support of appellant. With him on the\\nbriefs were Deanne E. Maynard and Lena H. Hughes,\\nappointed by the court.\\n\\n Kathleen E. Lyon, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,\\nargued the cause for appellee. With her on the brief were\\nRichard E. Zuckerman, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney\\nGeneral, and Teresa E. McLaughlin, Attorney.\\n\\n Before: GRIFFITH and SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judges, AND\\nGINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge\\nGINSBURG.\\n\\n GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge: The Appellant asked to\\nproceed anonymously before the Tax Court when challenging\\nthe decision of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to deny his\\napplication for a whistleblower award. The Tax Court denied\\n\\f 2\\nhis request, concluding the balance of interests weighed against\\nanonymity because the Appellant is a “serial filer” of\\nwhistleblower claims, which he bases upon publicly available\\ninformation. The Tax Court’s rationale was that if it does not\\n“identify serial filers by name, the public will be unable to\\njudge accurately the extent to which the serial filer\\nphenomenon has affected the work of the Tax Court.”\\nWhistleblower 14377-16W v. Comm’r, 148 T.C. 510, 518-19\\n(2017).\\n\\n We first hold we have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory\\nappeal pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. On the merits,\\nwe conclude the Tax Court abused its discretion because\\nidentifying the Appellant is not necessary to enable the public\\nto gauge (1) the extent to which serial filers affect the work of\\nthe Tax Court or (2) whether any particular petitioner is a serial\\nfiler. We therefore remand the case for the Tax Court to\\nreconsider whether the Appellant has otherwise made out a\\nfact-specific basis for protecting his identity under Tax Court\\nRule 345(a).\\n\\n I. Background\\n\\n The Appellant is a retired certified public accountant who\\nhelps his wife run a financial advisory firm. He has worked in\\nthe fields of “tax, accounting, and financial advice” for almost\\n40 years, including two decades as a partner in an accounting\\nfirm. Since at least 2010 the Appellant, using information\\ngleaned from public financial records, claims to have noticed\\naccounting irregularities in the filings made with the Securities\\nand Exchange Commission (SEC) by a publicly traded\\ncorporation (the Taxpayer), which led him to conclude the\\nTaxpayer had underpaid its taxes by misrepresenting its sales.\\nThe Appellant shared this information with the IRS and then\\nfiled an application for a whistleblower award pursuant to 26\\n\\f 3\\nU.S.C. § 7623(b), which permits any individual who has\\nprovided the IRS with information about an underpayment of\\ntax to receive a monetary award if his information enabled the\\nagency to collect additional tax revenue or other proceeds.\\n\\n The IRS investigated the Taxpayer, all the while keeping\\nthe Appellant’s identity confidential. In 2016 the IRS denied\\nhis claim for a whistleblower award, explaining that its audit of\\nthe Taxpayer did not yield any additional proceeds.\\n\\n The Appellant petitioned the Tax Court for review of that\\ndecision. Whistleblower 14377-16W, 148 T.C. at 510-11. In\\naddition, he asked to proceed anonymously under Tax Court\\nRule 345(a), which permits the petitioner in a whistleblower\\naction to file a motion “setting forth a sufficient, fact-specific\\nbasis for anonymity.” In pleadings and a declaration filed with\\nthe Tax Court, the Appellant claimed that disclosure of his\\nidentity would cause “severe damage” to his reputation, in a\\nfield in which “known whistleblowers are routinely blacklisted\\nby clients.” Disclosing his name, he said, would “jeopardize\\n[his] representation of current clients [and] of any future client\\nprospects,” cause him and his family to “suffer severe financial\\nharm,” “have a negative impact on [his] domestic relationship\\nwith [his] spouse,” and “elicit harsh and arbitrary retribution by\\nstate authorities” because some of his claims before the IRS\\n“involve parties very close to important political figures.”\\n\\n The Tax Court denied the Appellant’s motion to proceed\\nanonymously. Id. In reaching its decision, the Tax Court first\\ncompared the Appellant’s situation to that of five prior\\npetitioners who were allowed to proceed anonymously and\\nexplained the Appellant’s justifications for anonymity were not\\nsufficiently “fact-specific” to satisfy Rule 345(a):\\n\\n Unlike the claimants in the five reports summarized\\n\\f 4\\n above, petitioner has not identified a taxpayer who,\\n upon learning petitioner’s identity, would have the\\n power to, and might be expected to, act against him....\\n [H]is fears of marital discord, the alienation of unnamed\\n business partners, and retribution from unnamed\\n political figures are speculative, and, thus, petitioner has\\n not provided us with a sufficient ‘fact-specific’\\n justification for permission to proceed anonymously.\\n\\nId. at 517. The Tax Court went on, however, to say it would\\nhave allowed him to proceed anonymously were it not for his\\nbeing the “unusual claimant” who has filed multiple\\nwhistleblower claims based upon publicly available\\ninformation:\\n\\n Nevertheless, given the early stage of this case, we\\n might otherwise be inclined to weigh the people’s\\n interest in knowing who is using the courts as so weak\\n as to give petitioner the benefit of the doubt, at least\\n temporarily. But petitioner is an unusual claimant to\\n our whistleblower jurisdiction. He has so far brought\\n 11 whistleblower cases in the Tax Court.... He also\\n admits that he has before [the IRS] 51 numbered claims\\n supplemental to claims in cases already before the\\n Court....\\n\\n Petitioner’s recourse to publicly available materials to\\n identify supposed tax abuses imposes no natural limit\\n other than his own industriousness on the number of\\n cases he could bring. His lack of an employment or\\n other close relationship to the taxpayers he identifies\\n suggests that he has no familiarity with a taxpayer’s\\n basis or rationale for taking what petitioner considers an\\n abusive position. For those reasons, serial claimants of\\n whistleblower awards may disproportionately burden\\n\\f 5\\n the Court with petitions only superficially meritorious.\\n\\nId. at 517-18 (citation omitted). The Tax Court then concluded:\\n\\n Unless we identify serial filers by name, the public will\\n be unable to judge accurately the extent to which the\\n serial filer phenomenon has affected the work of the Tax\\n Court because the public would not know whether any\\n particular petitioner of an adverse whistleblower\\n determination had filed petitions appealing other\\n adverse whistleblower determinations.... The public\\n may wish to know the extent to which petitioners with\\n numerous whistleblower claims require ... special\\n handling [by the Tax Court].\\n\\nId. at 518-19.\\n\\n Although the Tax Court denied the Appellant’s motion to\\nproceed anonymously, it provisionally removed his name from\\nthe case caption to permit him to appeal anonymously. Id. at\\n511 n.2. Proceeding pro se, he filed a timely appeal in the\\nEighth Circuit, which transferred the case to this court pursuant\\nto the applicable venue statute. Whistleblower 14377-16W v.\\nComm’r, No. 17-2678, 2017 WL 7135455, at *1 (8th Cir. Sept.\\n27, 2017); see 26 U.S.C. § 7482(b)(1).\\n\\n II. Analysis\\n\\n We appointed an amicus curiae to assist the court in\\naddressing our jurisdiction and the issues the Appellant has\\nraised on appeal. As described below, however, the dispute has\\nnarrowed significantly on appeal because the parties agree, as\\ndo we, upon the appropriate legal standard for evaluating the\\npetition of a tax whistleblower to proceed anonymously in the\\nTax Court.\\n\\f 6\\nA. Collateral Order Doctrine\\n\\n Before addressing the merits, we are obliged to determine\\nwhether we have jurisdiction over this case under the collateral\\norder doctrine. See United States v. Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448,\\n1457 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (leaving open the question whether an\\norder granting anonymity fits within the doctrine). We agree\\nwith the parties that we do.\\n\\n The Tax Court’s order denying anonymity satisfies the\\nrequirements of the doctrine because it: (1) “conclusively\\ndetermines the disputed question,” that is, whether the\\nAppellant may proceed anonymously; (2) “resolves an\\nimportant issue completely separate from the merits of the\\naction”; and, (3) if the Appellant’s identity is disclosed as\\nrequired by the Tax Court, the issue would be “effectively\\nunreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” In re Sealed\\nCase (Med. Records), 381 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 2004).\\nEvery court of appeals to consider the question has applied the\\ncollateral order doctrine to permit immediate appeal of an order\\ndenying a motion to proceed anonymously, and we see no\\nreason to reach a contrary conclusion. See James v. Jacobson,\\n6 F.3d 233, 236-38 (4th Cir. 1993); Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d\\n180, 183 (5th Cir. 1981); Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d\\n372, 375-76 (7th Cir. 2016); Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced\\nTextile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2000); Raiser\\nv. Brigham Young Univ., 127 F. App’x 409, 410 (10th Cir.\\n2005); Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 322 & n.1 (11th Cir. 1992).\\nHaving assured ourselves of our jurisdiction, we turn to the\\nmerits of the case.\\n\\nB. The Appropriate Legal Test\\n\\n Tax Court decisions are reviewed “in the same manner and\\nto the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil\\n\\f 7\\nactions tried without a jury.” 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1).\\nAlthough we review de novo the criteria used by a district court\\nto decide whether to grant a motion to proceed anonymously,\\ncf. Price v. District of Columbia, 792 F.3d 112, 114 (D.C. Cir.\\n2015), we review a court’s application of those criteria only for\\nan abuse of discretion. See Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1464; James,\\n6 F.3d at 239. In so doing, we must consider “whether the\\ndecision maker failed to consider a relevant factor [or] relied\\non an improper factor, and whether the reasons given\\nreasonably support the conclusion.” Kickapoo Tribe of Indians\\nof the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas v. Babbitt, 43 F.3d\\n1491, 1497 (D.C. Cir. 1995).\\n\\n This court has not provided clear guidance as to when a\\npetitioner may proceed anonymously. In Microsoft, we said\\nonly that the district court should take into account the risk of\\nunfairness to the opposing party, as well as the “customary and\\nconstitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial\\nproceedings.” 56 F.3d at 1464 (quoting Stegall, 653 F.2d at\\n186). In that case, the “judge did not fulfill his duty to consider\\n... the public interest in knowing the identities of the\\nparticipants in this proceeding, nor did he consider possible\\nunfairness to [the defendant].” Id.\\n\\n Consistent with Microsoft, with the views of both parties\\nin this case, and with many of our sister circuits, we hold that\\nthe appropriate way to determine whether a litigant may\\nproceed anonymously is to balance the litigant’s legitimate\\ninterest in anonymity against countervailing interests in full\\ndisclosure. See, e.g., Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537\\nF.3d 185, 189 (2d Cir. 2008) (characterizing the relevant\\ninquiry in the Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits as “a\\nbalancing test that weighs the plaintiff’s need for anonymity\\nagainst countervailing interests in full disclosure”); see also\\nTax Court Rule 345, explanation to 2012 amendments\\n\\f 8\\n(explaining Rule 345(a) embodies a balancing test whereby a\\n“whistleblower’s identity” is “entitled to protection in the Tax\\nCourt upon a sufficient showing of harm that outweighs\\ncounterbalancing societal interests in knowing the\\nwhistleblower’s identity”) (citing Whistleblower 14106-10W v.\\nComm’r, 137 T.C. 183 (2011)). There is, of course, a\\npresumption in favor of disclosure, which stems from the\\n“general public interest in the openness of governmental\\nprocesses,” Washington Legal Found. v. U.S. Sentencing\\nComm’n, 89 F.3d 897, 899 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quotation marks\\nomitted), and, more specifically, from the tradition of open\\njudicial proceedings. See Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d at 324\\n(“Lawsuits are public events. A plaintiff should be permitted\\nto proceed anonymously only in ... exceptional cases”); FED. R.\\nCIV. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the\\nparties”); FED. R. CIV. P. 17(a) (“An action must be prosecuted\\nin the name of the real party in interest”). As the Seventh\\nCircuit explained, “[i]dentifying the parties to the proceeding\\nis an important dimension of publicness. The people have a\\nright to know who is using their courts.” Doe v. Blue Cross &\\nBlue Shield United of Wisconsin, 112 F.3d 869, 872 (1997);\\naccord Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 273 (4th Cir.\\n2014).\\n\\n In order to ensure the balance is appropriately struck,\\ncourts have endorsed various multi-factor tests involving as\\nmany as ten non-exhaustive factors. See, e.g., Sealed Plaintiff,\\n537 F.3d at 189-90; James, 6 F.3d at 238-39; Stegall, 653 F.2d\\nat 186; Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004); Doe\\nv. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d\\n1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). Some factors are “specific aspects\\nof a plaintiff’s potential privacy interests” or the weight to be\\ngiven those interests, but others “go more to the weight of the\\ncountervailing interest in open judicial proceedings.” Doe v.\\nDel Rio, 241 F.R.D. 154, 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). District courts\\n\\f 9\\nin our circuit often consider the five factors set forth by the\\nFourth Circuit in James, 6 F.3d at 238-39, perhaps because we\\nquoted it approvingly in Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1464. See\\nSandberg v. Vincent, 319 F. Supp. 3d 422, 426 (D.D.C. 2018)\\n(collecting cases).\\n\\n We continue to think those five factors serve well as\\nguideposts from which a court ought to begin its analysis:\\n\\n [1] whether the justification asserted by the requesting\\n party is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that\\n may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a\\n matter of sensitive and highly personal nature;\\n\\n [2] whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory\\n physical or mental harm to the requesting party or even\\n more critically, to innocent non-parties;\\n\\n [3] the ages of the persons whose privacy interests are\\n sought to be protected;\\n\\n [4] whether the action is against a governmental or\\n private party; and, relatedly,\\n\\n [5] the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from\\n allowing an action against it to proceed anonymously.\\n\\n6 F.3d at 238. The Tax Court has previously cited a “non-\\nexhaustive” list of ten factors borrowed from the Second\\nCircuit to guide its analysis of a request made under Rule\\n345(a), see Whistleblower 14106-10W, 137 T.C. at 193-94\\n(citing Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 189-90); we have no\\nquarrel with its use of the Second Circuit’s list, which\\nencompasses the five factors from James, as long as these\\nfactors inform the ultimate balancing of the public and private\\n\\f 10\\ninterests at stake.\\n\\n Indeed, our singling out of the James factors should not\\nlead a trial court to engage in a wooden exercise of ticking the\\nfive boxes. Cf. Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 189-90\\n(“caution[ing] that [its 10-factor] list is non-exhaustive and\\ndistrict courts should take into account other factors relevant to\\nthe particular case under consideration”); Stegall, 653 F.2d at\\n185-86 (“we think it would be a mistake to distill a rigid, three-\\nstep test for the propriety of party anonymity from [a] fact-\\nsensitive holding .... We advance no hard and fast formula for\\nascertaining whether a party may sue anonymously”). A court\\nthat fails to consider one of the five enumerated factors from\\nJames or one of the ten enumerated factors from the Second\\nCircuit’s list therefore does not automatically abuse its\\ndiscretion, as long as it has considered the factors relevant to\\nthe case before it.\\n\\nC. Applying the Balancing Test\\n\\n In this case, the Appellant urges us to find the Tax Court\\nabused its discretion in several ways: The Court (1) improperly\\nconsidered that he is a “serial filer” using public information to\\nmake his whistleblower claims; (2) improperly considered the\\nmerits of his claims when it assumed petitions by serial filers\\nusing public information are “only superficially meritorious”;\\n(3) failed to consider certain relevant factors weighing in the\\nAppellant’s favor; and (4) discounted the economic and\\nprofessional harms that would befall the Appellant if he were\\nidentified, and therefore incorrectly concluded he did not\\nadvance a fact-specific basis for preserving his anonymity.\\nBecause we agree with the Appellant’s first point, we do not\\nreach the other three.\\n\\n As to that first contention, the Appellant claims there is no\\n\\f 11\\nreason to disfavor filers in his position. In his view, the number\\nof whistleblower claims a person has filed and the source of\\ninformation upon which he relied to make those claims do not\\nbear upon any legitimate public interest in disclosing his name;\\nnor does it affect the interests of the public in ensuring fair\\nproceedings and in understanding the work of the Tax Court. *\\nSpecifically, the Appellant points out that the Tax Court failed\\nto identify any legal basis for disfavoring serial filers using\\npublic information: Neither the whistleblower statute nor any\\nprecedent suggests a public policy disfavoring repeat filers or\\nfilers who rely upon publicly available information. In any\\nevent, says the Appellant, disclosing his name would not serve\\nsuch a policy.\\n\\n We agree, based upon the Appellant’s last point, that the\\nreasoning of the Tax Court is not sound. The court said:\\n\\n Unless we identify serial filers by name, the public will\\n be unable to judge accurately the extent to which the\\n serial filer phenomenon has affected the work of the Tax\\n Court because the public would not know whether any\\n particular petitioner ... had filed petitions appealing\\n other adverse whistleblower determinations.\\n\\n148 T.C. at 518-19. It simply does not follow that the public\\nmust know the serial filers’ names in order to determine either\\nthe extent to which serial filers affect the work of the Tax Court\\n\\n\\n*\\n The IRS explains the Appellant’s use of public information means\\nhe “does not face the same risk of retaliation that threatens\\ninsiders.” Appellee’s Br. 45. True, but this misses the point: The\\nTax Court reasoned his use only of public information increased the\\npublic’s interest in disclosure, 148 T.C. at 518, but that fact is\\nrelevant only insofar as it diminishes the whistleblower’s interest in\\nanonymity.\\n\\f 12\\nor whether any particular whistleblower is a serial filer. As the\\nAppellant correctly points out, the Tax Court can serve those\\ninterests by alerting the public to the serial filer’s history and\\nby explaining the burdens that serial filers impose upon the\\ncourt; indeed, that is precisely what it did in this case. The use\\nof a unique pseudonym (John Doe, Jane Roe and the like) in all\\nthe cases filed by a particular filer would similarly inform the\\npublic in the two respects identified by the Tax Court. † Cf.\\nJames, 6 F.3d at 241-42 (remanding in part because the district\\ncourt did not consider the option of imposing conditions on the\\nplaintiffs’ use of pseudonyms that “could effectively relieve the\\ncourt’s expressed concerns”).\\n\\n III. Conclusion\\n\\n We conclude the Tax Court’s denial of the Appellant’s\\nrequest to proceed anonymously because he is a serial filer who\\nrelies upon public information was an abuse of discretion. See\\nKickapoo, 43 F.3d at 1497 (“An appellate court, in reviewing\\nfor an abuse of discretion, must consider ... whether the reasons\\ngiven reasonably support the conclusion”). Therefore, we\\nremand the case to the Tax Court to determine anew whether\\nthe Appellant has satisfied his burden under Rule 345(a) to set\\nforth a “sufficient, fact-specific basis for anonymity.”\\n\\n So ordered.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n†\\n Indeed, a dynamic pseudonym might itself convey the number of\\ncases that a particular person has filed, as in “John Doe (51)” for the\\nAppellant.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4420531/\", \"author_raw\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge GINSBURG.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"GRIFFITH"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SRINIVASAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"GINSBURG"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4643278/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: In Re: Sealed Case\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-26\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued April 2, 2019 Decided July 26, 2019\n\n No. 17-1212\n\n IN RE: SEALED CASE\n ______\n\n On Appeal from the Order of the\n United States Tax Court\n ______\n\n\n Michael F. Qian, appointed by the court, argued the cause\nas amicus curiae in support of appellant. With him on the\nbriefs were Deanne E. Maynard and Lena H. Hughes,\nappointed by the court.\n\n Kathleen E. Lyon, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,\nargued the cause for appellee. With her on the brief were\nRichard E. Zuckerman, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney\nGeneral, and Teresa E. McLaughlin, Attorney.\n\n Before: GRIFFITH and SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judges, AND\nGINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge.\n\n Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge\nGINSBURG.\n\n GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge: The Appellant asked to\nproceed anonymously before the Tax Court when challenging\nthe decision of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to deny his\napplication for a whistleblower award. The Tax Court denied\n\f 2\nhis request, concluding the balance of interests weighed against\nanonymity because the Appellant is a “serial filer” of\nwhistleblower claims, which he bases upon publicly available\ninformation. The Tax Court’s rationale was that if it does not\n“identify serial filers by name, the public will be unable to\njudge accurately the extent to which the serial filer\nphenomenon has affected the work of the Tax Court.”\nWhistleblower 14377-16W v. Comm’r, 148 T.C. 510, 518-19\n(2017).\n\n We first hold we have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory\nappeal pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. On the merits,\nwe conclude the Tax Court abused its discretion because\nidentifying the Appellant is not necessary to enable the public\nto gauge (1) the extent to which serial filers affect the work of\nthe Tax Court or (2) whether any particular petitioner is a serial\nfiler. We therefore remand the case for the Tax Court to\nreconsider whether the Appellant has otherwise made out a\nfact-specific basis for protecting his identity under Tax Court\nRule 345(a).\n\n I. Background\n\n The Appellant is a retired certified public accountant who\nhelps his wife run a financial advisory firm. He has worked in\nthe fields of “tax, accounting, and financial advice” for almost\n40 years, including two decades as a partner in an accounting\nfirm. Since at least 2010 the Appellant, using information\ngleaned from public financial records, claims to have noticed\naccounting irregularities in the filings made with the Securities\nand Exchange Commission (SEC) by a publicly traded\ncorporation (the Taxpayer), which led him to conclude the\nTaxpayer had underpaid its taxes by misrepresenting its sales.\nThe Appellant shared this information with the IRS and then\nfiled an application for a whistleblower award pursuant to 26\n\f 3\nU.S.C. § 7623(b), which permits any individual who has\nprovided the IRS with information about an underpayment of\ntax to receive a monetary award if his information enabled the\nagency to collect additional tax revenue or other proceeds.\n\n The IRS investigated the Taxpayer, all the while keeping\nthe Appellant’s identity confidential. In 2016 the IRS denied\nhis claim for a whistleblower award, explaining that its audit of\nthe Taxpayer did not yield any additional proceeds.\n\n The Appellant petitioned the Tax Court for review of that\ndecision. Whistleblower 14377-16W, 148 T.C. at 510-11. In\naddition, he asked to proceed anonymously under Tax Court\nRule 345(a), which permits the petitioner in a whistleblower\naction to file a motion “setting forth a sufficient, fact-specific\nbasis for anonymity.” In pleadings and a declaration filed with\nthe Tax Court, the Appellant claimed that disclosure of his\nidentity would cause “severe damage” to his reputation, in a\nfield in which “known whistleblowers are routinely blacklisted\nby clients.” Disclosing his name, he said, would “jeopardize\n[his] representation of current clients [and] of any future client\nprospects,” cause him and his family to “suffer severe financial\nharm,” “have a negative impact on [his] domestic relationship\nwith [his] spouse,” and “elicit harsh and arbitrary retribution by\nstate authorities” because some of his claims before the IRS\n“involve parties very close to important political figures.”\n\n The Tax Court denied the Appellant’s motion to proceed\nanonymously. Id. In reaching its decision, the Tax Court first\ncompared the Appellant’s situation to that of five prior\npetitioners who were allowed to proceed anonymously and\nexplained the Appellant’s justifications for anonymity were not\nsufficiently “fact-specific” to satisfy Rule 345(a):\n\n Unlike the claimants in the five reports summarized\n\f 4\n above, petitioner has not identified a taxpayer who,\n upon learning petitioner’s identity, would have the\n power to, and might be expected to, act against him....\n [H]is fears of marital discord, the alienation of unnamed\n business partners, and retribution from unnamed\n political figures are speculative, and, thus, petitioner has\n not provided us with a sufficient ‘fact-specific’\n justification for permission to proceed anonymously.\n\nId. at 517. The Tax Court went on, however, to say it would\nhave allowed him to proceed anonymously were it not for his\nbeing the “unusual claimant” who has filed multiple\nwhistleblower claims based upon publicly available\ninformation:\n\n Nevertheless, given the early stage of this case, we\n might otherwise be inclined to weigh the people’s\n interest in knowing who is using the courts as so weak\n as to give petitioner the benefit of the doubt, at least\n temporarily. But petitioner is an unusual claimant to\n our whistleblower jurisdiction. He has so far brought\n 11 whistleblower cases in the Tax Court.... He also\n admits that he has before [the IRS] 51 numbered claims\n supplemental to claims in cases already before the\n Court....\n\n Petitioner’s recourse to publicly available materials to\n identify supposed tax abuses imposes no natural limit\n other than his own industriousness on the number of\n cases he could bring. His lack of an employment or\n other close relationship to the taxpayers he identifies\n suggests that he has no familiarity with a taxpayer’s\n basis or rationale for taking what petitioner considers an\n abusive position. For those reasons, serial claimants of\n whistleblower awards may disproportionately burden\n\f 5\n the Court with petitions only superficially meritorious.\n\nId. at 517-18 (citation omitted). The Tax Court then concluded:\n\n Unless we identify serial filers by name, the public will\n be unable to judge accurately the extent to which the\n serial filer phenomenon has affected the work of the Tax\n Court because the public would not know whether any\n particular petitioner of an adverse whistleblower\n determination had filed petitions appealing other\n adverse whistleblower determinations.... The public\n may wish to know the extent to which petitioners with\n numerous whistleblower claims require ... special\n handling [by the Tax Court].\n\nId. at 518-19.\n\n Although the Tax Court denied the Appellant’s motion to\nproceed anonymously, it provisionally removed his name from\nthe case caption to permit him to appeal anonymously. Id. at\n511 n.2. Proceeding pro se, he filed a timely appeal in the\nEighth Circuit, which transferred the case to this court pursuant\nto the applicable venue statute. Whistleblower 14377-16W v.\nComm’r, No. 17-2678, 2017 WL 7135455, at *1 (8th Cir. Sept.\n27, 2017); see 26 U.S.C. § 7482(b)(1).\n\n II. Analysis\n\n We appointed an amicus curiae to assist the court in\naddressing our jurisdiction and the issues the Appellant has\nraised on appeal. As described below, however, the dispute has\nnarrowed significantly on appeal because the parties agree, as\ndo we, upon the appropriate legal standard for evaluating the\npetition of a tax whistleblower to proceed anonymously in the\nTax Court.\n\f 6\nA. Collateral Order Doctrine\n\n Before addressing the merits, we are obliged to determine\nwhether we have jurisdiction over this case under the collateral\norder doctrine. See United States v. Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448,\n1457 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (leaving open the question whether an\norder granting anonymity fits within the doctrine). We agree\nwith the parties that we do.\n\n The Tax Court’s order denying anonymity satisfies the\nrequirements of the doctrine because it: (1) “conclusively\ndetermines the disputed question,” that is, whether the\nAppellant may proceed anonymously; (2) “resolves an\nimportant issue completely separate from the merits of the\naction”; and, (3) if the Appellant’s identity is disclosed as\nrequired by the Tax Court, the issue would be “effectively\nunreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” In re Sealed\nCase (Med. Records), 381 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 2004).\nEvery court of appeals to consider the question has applied the\ncollateral order doctrine to permit immediate appeal of an order\ndenying a motion to proceed anonymously, and we see no\nreason to reach a contrary conclusion. See James v. Jacobson,\n6 F.3d 233, 236-38 (4th Cir. 1993); Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d\n180, 183 (5th Cir. 1981); Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d\n372, 375-76 (7th Cir. 2016); Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced\nTextile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2000); Raiser\nv. Brigham Young Univ., 127 F. App’x 409, 410 (10th Cir.\n2005); Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 322 & n.1 (11th Cir. 1992).\nHaving assured ourselves of our jurisdiction, we turn to the\nmerits of the case.\n\nB. The Appropriate Legal Test\n\n Tax Court decisions are reviewed “in the same manner and\nto the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil\n\f 7\nactions tried without a jury.” 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1).\nAlthough we review de novo the criteria used by a district court\nto decide whether to grant a motion to proceed anonymously,\ncf. Price v. District of Columbia, 792 F.3d 112, 114 (D.C. Cir.\n2015), we review a court’s application of those criteria only for\nan abuse of discretion. See Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1464; James,\n6 F.3d at 239. In so doing, we must consider “whether the\ndecision maker failed to consider a relevant factor [or] relied\non an improper factor, and whether the reasons given\nreasonably support the conclusion.” Kickapoo Tribe of Indians\nof the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas v. Babbitt, 43 F.3d\n1491, 1497 (D.C. Cir. 1995).\n\n This court has not provided clear guidance as to when a\npetitioner may proceed anonymously. In Microsoft, we said\nonly that the district court should take into account the risk of\nunfairness to the opposing party, as well as the “customary and\nconstitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial\nproceedings.” 56 F.3d at 1464 (quoting Stegall, 653 F.2d at\n186). In that case, the “judge did not fulfill his duty to consider\n... the public interest in knowing the identities of the\nparticipants in this proceeding, nor did he consider possible\nunfairness to [the defendant].” Id.\n\n Consistent with Microsoft, with the views of both parties\nin this case, and with many of our sister circuits, we hold that\nthe appropriate way to determine whether a litigant may\nproceed anonymously is to balance the litigant’s legitimate\ninterest in anonymity against countervailing interests in full\ndisclosure. See, e.g., Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537\nF.3d 185, 189 (2d Cir. 2008) (characterizing the relevant\ninquiry in the Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits as “a\nbalancing test that weighs the plaintiff’s need for anonymity\nagainst countervailing interests in full disclosure”); see also\nTax Court Rule 345, explanation to 2012 amendments\n\f 8\n(explaining Rule 345(a) embodies a balancing test whereby a\n“whistleblower’s identity” is “entitled to protection in the Tax\nCourt upon a sufficient showing of harm that outweighs\ncounterbalancing societal interests in knowing the\nwhistleblower’s identity”) (citing Whistleblower 14106-10W v.\nComm’r, 137 T.C. 183 (2011)). There is, of course, a\npresumption in favor of disclosure, which stems from the\n“general public interest in the openness of governmental\nprocesses,” Washington Legal Found. v. U.S. Sentencing\nComm’n, 89 F.3d 897, 899 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quotation marks\nomitted), and, more specifically, from the tradition of open\njudicial proceedings. See Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d at 324\n(“Lawsuits are public events. A plaintiff should be permitted\nto proceed anonymously only in ... exceptional cases”); FED. R.\nCIV. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the\nparties”); FED. R. CIV. P. 17(a) (“An action must be prosecuted\nin the name of the real party in interest”). As the Seventh\nCircuit explained, “[i]dentifying the parties to the proceeding\nis an important dimension of publicness. The people have a\nright to know who is using their courts.” Doe v. Blue Cross &\nBlue Shield United of Wisconsin, 112 F.3d 869, 872 (1997);\naccord Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 273 (4th Cir.\n2014).\n\n In order to ensure the balance is appropriately struck,\ncourts have endorsed various multi-factor tests involving as\nmany as ten non-exhaustive factors. See, e.g., Sealed Plaintiff,\n537 F.3d at 189-90; James, 6 F.3d at 238-39; Stegall, 653 F.2d\nat 186; Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004); Doe\nv. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d\n1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). Some factors are “specific aspects\nof a plaintiff’s potential privacy interests” or the weight to be\ngiven those interests, but others “go more to the weight of the\ncountervailing interest in open judicial proceedings.” Doe v.\nDel Rio, 241 F.R.D. 154, 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). District courts\n\f 9\nin our circuit often consider the five factors set forth by the\nFourth Circuit in James, 6 F.3d at 238-39, perhaps because we\nquoted it approvingly in Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1464. See\nSandberg v. Vincent, 319 F. Supp. 3d 422, 426 (D.D.C. 2018)\n(collecting cases).\n\n We continue to think those five factors serve well as\nguideposts from which a court ought to begin its analysis:\n\n [1] whether the justification asserted by the requesting\n party is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that\n may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a\n matter of sensitive and highly personal nature;\n\n [2] whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory\n physical or mental harm to the requesting party or even\n more critically, to innocent non-parties;\n\n [3] the ages of the persons whose privacy interests are\n sought to be protected;\n\n [4] whether the action is against a governmental or\n private party; and, relatedly,\n\n [5] the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from\n allowing an action against it to proceed anonymously.\n\n6 F.3d at 238. The Tax Court has previously cited a “non-\nexhaustive” list of ten factors borrowed from the Second\nCircuit to guide its analysis of a request made under Rule\n345(a), see Whistleblower 14106-10W, 137 T.C. at 193-94\n(citing Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 189-90); we have no\nquarrel with its use of the Second Circuit’s list, which\nencompasses the five factors from James, as long as these\nfactors inform the ultimate balancing of the public and private\n\f 10\ninterests at stake.\n\n Indeed, our singling out of the James factors should not\nlead a trial court to engage in a wooden exercise of ticking the\nfive boxes. Cf. Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 189-90\n(“caution[ing] that [its 10-factor] list is non-exhaustive and\ndistrict courts should take into account other factors relevant to\nthe particular case under consideration”); Stegall, 653 F.2d at\n185-86 (“we think it would be a mistake to distill a rigid, three-\nstep test for the propriety of party anonymity from [a] fact-\nsensitive holding .... We advance no hard and fast formula for\nascertaining whether a party may sue anonymously”). A court\nthat fails to consider one of the five enumerated factors from\nJames or one of the ten enumerated factors from the Second\nCircuit’s list therefore does not automatically abuse its\ndiscretion, as long as it has considered the factors relevant to\nthe case before it.\n\nC. Applying the Balancing Test\n\n In this case, the Appellant urges us to find the Tax Court\nabused its discretion in several ways: The Court (1) improperly\nconsidered that he is a “serial filer” using public information to\nmake his whistleblower claims; (2) improperly considered the\nmerits of his claims when it assumed petitions by serial filers\nusing public information are “only superficially meritorious”;\n(3) failed to consider certain relevant factors weighing in the\nAppellant’s favor; and (4) discounted the economic and\nprofessional harms that would befall the Appellant if he were\nidentified, and therefore incorrectly concluded he did not\nadvance a fact-specific basis for preserving his anonymity.\nBecause we agree with the Appellant’s first point, we do not\nreach the other three.\n\n As to that first contention, the Appellant claims there is no\n\f 11\nreason to disfavor filers in his position. In his view, the number\nof whistleblower claims a person has filed and the source of\ninformation upon which he relied to make those claims do not\nbear upon any legitimate public interest in disclosing his name;\nnor does it affect the interests of the public in ensuring fair\nproceedings and in understanding the work of the Tax Court. *\nSpecifically, the Appellant points out that the Tax Court failed\nto identify any legal basis for disfavoring serial filers using\npublic information: Neither the whistleblower statute nor any\nprecedent suggests a public policy disfavoring repeat filers or\nfilers who rely upon publicly available information. In any\nevent, says the Appellant, disclosing his name would not serve\nsuch a policy.\n\n We agree, based upon the Appellant’s last point, that the\nreasoning of the Tax Court is not sound. The court said:\n\n Unless we identify serial filers by name, the public will\n be unable to judge accurately the extent to which the\n serial filer phenomenon has affected the work of the Tax\n Court because the public would not know whether any\n particular petitioner ... had filed petitions appealing\n other adverse whistleblower determinations.\n\n148 T.C. at 518-19. It simply does not follow that the public\nmust know the serial filers’ names in order to determine either\nthe extent to which serial filers affect the work of the Tax Court\n\n\n*\n The IRS explains the Appellant’s use of public information means\nhe “does not face the same risk of retaliation that threatens\ninsiders.” Appellee’s Br. 45. True, but this misses the point: The\nTax Court reasoned his use only of public information increased the\npublic’s interest in disclosure, 148 T.C. at 518, but that fact is\nrelevant only insofar as it diminishes the whistleblower’s interest in\nanonymity.\n\f 12\nor whether any particular whistleblower is a serial filer. As the\nAppellant correctly points out, the Tax Court can serve those\ninterests by alerting the public to the serial filer’s history and\nby explaining the burdens that serial filers impose upon the\ncourt; indeed, that is precisely what it did in this case. The use\nof a unique pseudonym (John Doe, Jane Roe and the like) in all\nthe cases filed by a particular filer would similarly inform the\npublic in the two respects identified by the Tax Court. † Cf.\nJames, 6 F.3d at 241-42 (remanding in part because the district\ncourt did not consider the option of imposing conditions on the\nplaintiffs’ use of pseudonyms that “could effectively relieve the\ncourt’s expressed concerns”).\n\n III. Conclusion\n\n We conclude the Tax Court’s denial of the Appellant’s\nrequest to proceed anonymously because he is a serial filer who\nrelies upon public information was an abuse of discretion. See\nKickapoo, 43 F.3d at 1497 (“An appellate court, in reviewing\nfor an abuse of discretion, must consider ... whether the reasons\ngiven reasonably support the conclusion”). Therefore, we\nremand the case to the Tax Court to determine anew whether\nthe Appellant has satisfied his burden under Rule 345(a) to set\nforth a “sufficient, fact-specific basis for anonymity.”\n\n So ordered.\n\n\n\n\n†\n Indeed, a dynamic pseudonym might itself convey the number of\ncases that a particular person has filed, as in “John Doe (51)” for the\nAppellant.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: In Re: Sealed Case\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-26\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued April 2, 2019 Decided July 26, 2019\\n\\n No. 17-1212\\n\\n IN RE: SEALED CASE\\n ______\\n\\n On Appeal from the Order of the\\n United States Tax Court\\n ______\\n\\n\\n Michael F. Qian, appointed by the court, argued the cause\\nas amicus curiae in support of appellant. With him on the\\nbriefs were Deanne E. Maynard and Lena H. Hughes,\\nappointed by the court.\\n\\n Kathleen E. Lyon, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,\\nargued the cause for appellee. With her on the brief were\\nRichard E. Zuckerman, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney\\nGeneral, and Teresa E. McLaughlin, Attorney.\\n\\n Before: GRIFFITH and SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judges, AND\\nGINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge\\nGINSBURG.\\n\\n GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge: The Appellant asked to\\nproceed anonymously before the Tax Court when challenging\\nthe decision of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to deny his\\napplication for a whistleblower award. The Tax Court denied\\n\\f 2\\nhis request, concluding the balance of interests weighed against\\nanonymity because the Appellant is a “serial filer” of\\nwhistleblower claims, which he bases upon publicly available\\ninformation. The Tax Court’s rationale was that if it does not\\n“identify serial filers by name, the public will be unable to\\njudge accurately the extent to which the serial filer\\nphenomenon has affected the work of the Tax Court.”\\nWhistleblower 14377-16W v. Comm’r, 148 T.C. 510, 518-19\\n(2017).\\n\\n We first hold we have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory\\nappeal pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. On the merits,\\nwe conclude the Tax Court abused its discretion because\\nidentifying the Appellant is not necessary to enable the public\\nto gauge (1) the extent to which serial filers affect the work of\\nthe Tax Court or (2) whether any particular petitioner is a serial\\nfiler. We therefore remand the case for the Tax Court to\\nreconsider whether the Appellant has otherwise made out a\\nfact-specific basis for protecting his identity under Tax Court\\nRule 345(a).\\n\\n I. Background\\n\\n The Appellant is a retired certified public accountant who\\nhelps his wife run a financial advisory firm. He has worked in\\nthe fields of “tax, accounting, and financial advice” for almost\\n40 years, including two decades as a partner in an accounting\\nfirm. Since at least 2010 the Appellant, using information\\ngleaned from public financial records, claims to have noticed\\naccounting irregularities in the filings made with the Securities\\nand Exchange Commission (SEC) by a publicly traded\\ncorporation (the Taxpayer), which led him to conclude the\\nTaxpayer had underpaid its taxes by misrepresenting its sales.\\nThe Appellant shared this information with the IRS and then\\nfiled an application for a whistleblower award pursuant to 26\\n\\f 3\\nU.S.C. § 7623(b), which permits any individual who has\\nprovided the IRS with information about an underpayment of\\ntax to receive a monetary award if his information enabled the\\nagency to collect additional tax revenue or other proceeds.\\n\\n The IRS investigated the Taxpayer, all the while keeping\\nthe Appellant’s identity confidential. In 2016 the IRS denied\\nhis claim for a whistleblower award, explaining that its audit of\\nthe Taxpayer did not yield any additional proceeds.\\n\\n The Appellant petitioned the Tax Court for review of that\\ndecision. Whistleblower 14377-16W, 148 T.C. at 510-11. In\\naddition, he asked to proceed anonymously under Tax Court\\nRule 345(a), which permits the petitioner in a whistleblower\\naction to file a motion “setting forth a sufficient, fact-specific\\nbasis for anonymity.” In pleadings and a declaration filed with\\nthe Tax Court, the Appellant claimed that disclosure of his\\nidentity would cause “severe damage” to his reputation, in a\\nfield in which “known whistleblowers are routinely blacklisted\\nby clients.” Disclosing his name, he said, would “jeopardize\\n[his] representation of current clients [and] of any future client\\nprospects,” cause him and his family to “suffer severe financial\\nharm,” “have a negative impact on [his] domestic relationship\\nwith [his] spouse,” and “elicit harsh and arbitrary retribution by\\nstate authorities” because some of his claims before the IRS\\n“involve parties very close to important political figures.”\\n\\n The Tax Court denied the Appellant’s motion to proceed\\nanonymously. Id. In reaching its decision, the Tax Court first\\ncompared the Appellant’s situation to that of five prior\\npetitioners who were allowed to proceed anonymously and\\nexplained the Appellant’s justifications for anonymity were not\\nsufficiently “fact-specific” to satisfy Rule 345(a):\\n\\n Unlike the claimants in the five reports summarized\\n\\f 4\\n above, petitioner has not identified a taxpayer who,\\n upon learning petitioner’s identity, would have the\\n power to, and might be expected to, act against him....\\n [H]is fears of marital discord, the alienation of unnamed\\n business partners, and retribution from unnamed\\n political figures are speculative, and, thus, petitioner has\\n not provided us with a sufficient ‘fact-specific’\\n justification for permission to proceed anonymously.\\n\\nId. at 517. The Tax Court went on, however, to say it would\\nhave allowed him to proceed anonymously were it not for his\\nbeing the “unusual claimant” who has filed multiple\\nwhistleblower claims based upon publicly available\\ninformation:\\n\\n Nevertheless, given the early stage of this case, we\\n might otherwise be inclined to weigh the people’s\\n interest in knowing who is using the courts as so weak\\n as to give petitioner the benefit of the doubt, at least\\n temporarily. But petitioner is an unusual claimant to\\n our whistleblower jurisdiction. He has so far brought\\n 11 whistleblower cases in the Tax Court.... He also\\n admits that he has before [the IRS] 51 numbered claims\\n supplemental to claims in cases already before the\\n Court....\\n\\n Petitioner’s recourse to publicly available materials to\\n identify supposed tax abuses imposes no natural limit\\n other than his own industriousness on the number of\\n cases he could bring. His lack of an employment or\\n other close relationship to the taxpayers he identifies\\n suggests that he has no familiarity with a taxpayer’s\\n basis or rationale for taking what petitioner considers an\\n abusive position. For those reasons, serial claimants of\\n whistleblower awards may disproportionately burden\\n\\f 5\\n the Court with petitions only superficially meritorious.\\n\\nId. at 517-18 (citation omitted). The Tax Court then concluded:\\n\\n Unless we identify serial filers by name, the public will\\n be unable to judge accurately the extent to which the\\n serial filer phenomenon has affected the work of the Tax\\n Court because the public would not know whether any\\n particular petitioner of an adverse whistleblower\\n determination had filed petitions appealing other\\n adverse whistleblower determinations.... The public\\n may wish to know the extent to which petitioners with\\n numerous whistleblower claims require ... special\\n handling [by the Tax Court].\\n\\nId. at 518-19.\\n\\n Although the Tax Court denied the Appellant’s motion to\\nproceed anonymously, it provisionally removed his name from\\nthe case caption to permit him to appeal anonymously. Id. at\\n511 n.2. Proceeding pro se, he filed a timely appeal in the\\nEighth Circuit, which transferred the case to this court pursuant\\nto the applicable venue statute. Whistleblower 14377-16W v.\\nComm’r, No. 17-2678, 2017 WL 7135455, at *1 (8th Cir. Sept.\\n27, 2017); see 26 U.S.C. § 7482(b)(1).\\n\\n II. Analysis\\n\\n We appointed an amicus curiae to assist the court in\\naddressing our jurisdiction and the issues the Appellant has\\nraised on appeal. As described below, however, the dispute has\\nnarrowed significantly on appeal because the parties agree, as\\ndo we, upon the appropriate legal standard for evaluating the\\npetition of a tax whistleblower to proceed anonymously in the\\nTax Court.\\n\\f 6\\nA. Collateral Order Doctrine\\n\\n Before addressing the merits, we are obliged to determine\\nwhether we have jurisdiction over this case under the collateral\\norder doctrine. See United States v. Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448,\\n1457 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (leaving open the question whether an\\norder granting anonymity fits within the doctrine). We agree\\nwith the parties that we do.\\n\\n The Tax Court’s order denying anonymity satisfies the\\nrequirements of the doctrine because it: (1) “conclusively\\ndetermines the disputed question,” that is, whether the\\nAppellant may proceed anonymously; (2) “resolves an\\nimportant issue completely separate from the merits of the\\naction”; and, (3) if the Appellant’s identity is disclosed as\\nrequired by the Tax Court, the issue would be “effectively\\nunreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” In re Sealed\\nCase (Med. Records), 381 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 2004).\\nEvery court of appeals to consider the question has applied the\\ncollateral order doctrine to permit immediate appeal of an order\\ndenying a motion to proceed anonymously, and we see no\\nreason to reach a contrary conclusion. See James v. Jacobson,\\n6 F.3d 233, 236-38 (4th Cir. 1993); Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d\\n180, 183 (5th Cir. 1981); Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d\\n372, 375-76 (7th Cir. 2016); Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced\\nTextile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2000); Raiser\\nv. Brigham Young Univ., 127 F. App’x 409, 410 (10th Cir.\\n2005); Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 322 & n.1 (11th Cir. 1992).\\nHaving assured ourselves of our jurisdiction, we turn to the\\nmerits of the case.\\n\\nB. The Appropriate Legal Test\\n\\n Tax Court decisions are reviewed “in the same manner and\\nto the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil\\n\\f 7\\nactions tried without a jury.” 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1).\\nAlthough we review de novo the criteria used by a district court\\nto decide whether to grant a motion to proceed anonymously,\\ncf. Price v. District of Columbia, 792 F.3d 112, 114 (D.C. Cir.\\n2015), we review a court’s application of those criteria only for\\nan abuse of discretion. See Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1464; James,\\n6 F.3d at 239. In so doing, we must consider “whether the\\ndecision maker failed to consider a relevant factor [or] relied\\non an improper factor, and whether the reasons given\\nreasonably support the conclusion.” Kickapoo Tribe of Indians\\nof the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas v. Babbitt, 43 F.3d\\n1491, 1497 (D.C. Cir. 1995).\\n\\n This court has not provided clear guidance as to when a\\npetitioner may proceed anonymously. In Microsoft, we said\\nonly that the district court should take into account the risk of\\nunfairness to the opposing party, as well as the “customary and\\nconstitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial\\nproceedings.” 56 F.3d at 1464 (quoting Stegall, 653 F.2d at\\n186). In that case, the “judge did not fulfill his duty to consider\\n... the public interest in knowing the identities of the\\nparticipants in this proceeding, nor did he consider possible\\nunfairness to [the defendant].” Id.\\n\\n Consistent with Microsoft, with the views of both parties\\nin this case, and with many of our sister circuits, we hold that\\nthe appropriate way to determine whether a litigant may\\nproceed anonymously is to balance the litigant’s legitimate\\ninterest in anonymity against countervailing interests in full\\ndisclosure. See, e.g., Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537\\nF.3d 185, 189 (2d Cir. 2008) (characterizing the relevant\\ninquiry in the Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits as “a\\nbalancing test that weighs the plaintiff’s need for anonymity\\nagainst countervailing interests in full disclosure”); see also\\nTax Court Rule 345, explanation to 2012 amendments\\n\\f 8\\n(explaining Rule 345(a) embodies a balancing test whereby a\\n“whistleblower’s identity” is “entitled to protection in the Tax\\nCourt upon a sufficient showing of harm that outweighs\\ncounterbalancing societal interests in knowing the\\nwhistleblower’s identity”) (citing Whistleblower 14106-10W v.\\nComm’r, 137 T.C. 183 (2011)). There is, of course, a\\npresumption in favor of disclosure, which stems from the\\n“general public interest in the openness of governmental\\nprocesses,” Washington Legal Found. v. U.S. Sentencing\\nComm’n, 89 F.3d 897, 899 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quotation marks\\nomitted), and, more specifically, from the tradition of open\\njudicial proceedings. See Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d at 324\\n(“Lawsuits are public events. A plaintiff should be permitted\\nto proceed anonymously only in ... exceptional cases”); FED. R.\\nCIV. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the\\nparties”); FED. R. CIV. P. 17(a) (“An action must be prosecuted\\nin the name of the real party in interest”). As the Seventh\\nCircuit explained, “[i]dentifying the parties to the proceeding\\nis an important dimension of publicness. The people have a\\nright to know who is using their courts.” Doe v. Blue Cross &\\nBlue Shield United of Wisconsin, 112 F.3d 869, 872 (1997);\\naccord Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 273 (4th Cir.\\n2014).\\n\\n In order to ensure the balance is appropriately struck,\\ncourts have endorsed various multi-factor tests involving as\\nmany as ten non-exhaustive factors. See, e.g., Sealed Plaintiff,\\n537 F.3d at 189-90; James, 6 F.3d at 238-39; Stegall, 653 F.2d\\nat 186; Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004); Doe\\nv. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d\\n1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). Some factors are “specific aspects\\nof a plaintiff’s potential privacy interests” or the weight to be\\ngiven those interests, but others “go more to the weight of the\\ncountervailing interest in open judicial proceedings.” Doe v.\\nDel Rio, 241 F.R.D. 154, 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). District courts\\n\\f 9\\nin our circuit often consider the five factors set forth by the\\nFourth Circuit in James, 6 F.3d at 238-39, perhaps because we\\nquoted it approvingly in Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1464. See\\nSandberg v. Vincent, 319 F. Supp. 3d 422, 426 (D.D.C. 2018)\\n(collecting cases).\\n\\n We continue to think those five factors serve well as\\nguideposts from which a court ought to begin its analysis:\\n\\n [1] whether the justification asserted by the requesting\\n party is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that\\n may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a\\n matter of sensitive and highly personal nature;\\n\\n [2] whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory\\n physical or mental harm to the requesting party or even\\n more critically, to innocent non-parties;\\n\\n [3] the ages of the persons whose privacy interests are\\n sought to be protected;\\n\\n [4] whether the action is against a governmental or\\n private party; and, relatedly,\\n\\n [5] the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from\\n allowing an action against it to proceed anonymously.\\n\\n6 F.3d at 238. The Tax Court has previously cited a “non-\\nexhaustive” list of ten factors borrowed from the Second\\nCircuit to guide its analysis of a request made under Rule\\n345(a), see Whistleblower 14106-10W, 137 T.C. at 193-94\\n(citing Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 189-90); we have no\\nquarrel with its use of the Second Circuit’s list, which\\nencompasses the five factors from James, as long as these\\nfactors inform the ultimate balancing of the public and private\\n\\f 10\\ninterests at stake.\\n\\n Indeed, our singling out of the James factors should not\\nlead a trial court to engage in a wooden exercise of ticking the\\nfive boxes. Cf. Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 189-90\\n(“caution[ing] that [its 10-factor] list is non-exhaustive and\\ndistrict courts should take into account other factors relevant to\\nthe particular case under consideration”); Stegall, 653 F.2d at\\n185-86 (“we think it would be a mistake to distill a rigid, three-\\nstep test for the propriety of party anonymity from [a] fact-\\nsensitive holding .... We advance no hard and fast formula for\\nascertaining whether a party may sue anonymously”). A court\\nthat fails to consider one of the five enumerated factors from\\nJames or one of the ten enumerated factors from the Second\\nCircuit’s list therefore does not automatically abuse its\\ndiscretion, as long as it has considered the factors relevant to\\nthe case before it.\\n\\nC. Applying the Balancing Test\\n\\n In this case, the Appellant urges us to find the Tax Court\\nabused its discretion in several ways: The Court (1) improperly\\nconsidered that he is a “serial filer” using public information to\\nmake his whistleblower claims; (2) improperly considered the\\nmerits of his claims when it assumed petitions by serial filers\\nusing public information are “only superficially meritorious”;\\n(3) failed to consider certain relevant factors weighing in the\\nAppellant’s favor; and (4) discounted the economic and\\nprofessional harms that would befall the Appellant if he were\\nidentified, and therefore incorrectly concluded he did not\\nadvance a fact-specific basis for preserving his anonymity.\\nBecause we agree with the Appellant’s first point, we do not\\nreach the other three.\\n\\n As to that first contention, the Appellant claims there is no\\n\\f 11\\nreason to disfavor filers in his position. In his view, the number\\nof whistleblower claims a person has filed and the source of\\ninformation upon which he relied to make those claims do not\\nbear upon any legitimate public interest in disclosing his name;\\nnor does it affect the interests of the public in ensuring fair\\nproceedings and in understanding the work of the Tax Court. *\\nSpecifically, the Appellant points out that the Tax Court failed\\nto identify any legal basis for disfavoring serial filers using\\npublic information: Neither the whistleblower statute nor any\\nprecedent suggests a public policy disfavoring repeat filers or\\nfilers who rely upon publicly available information. In any\\nevent, says the Appellant, disclosing his name would not serve\\nsuch a policy.\\n\\n We agree, based upon the Appellant’s last point, that the\\nreasoning of the Tax Court is not sound. The court said:\\n\\n Unless we identify serial filers by name, the public will\\n be unable to judge accurately the extent to which the\\n serial filer phenomenon has affected the work of the Tax\\n Court because the public would not know whether any\\n particular petitioner ... had filed petitions appealing\\n other adverse whistleblower determinations.\\n\\n148 T.C. at 518-19. It simply does not follow that the public\\nmust know the serial filers’ names in order to determine either\\nthe extent to which serial filers affect the work of the Tax Court\\n\\n\\n*\\n The IRS explains the Appellant’s use of public information means\\nhe “does not face the same risk of retaliation that threatens\\ninsiders.” Appellee’s Br. 45. True, but this misses the point: The\\nTax Court reasoned his use only of public information increased the\\npublic’s interest in disclosure, 148 T.C. at 518, but that fact is\\nrelevant only insofar as it diminishes the whistleblower’s interest in\\nanonymity.\\n\\f 12\\nor whether any particular whistleblower is a serial filer. As the\\nAppellant correctly points out, the Tax Court can serve those\\ninterests by alerting the public to the serial filer’s history and\\nby explaining the burdens that serial filers impose upon the\\ncourt; indeed, that is precisely what it did in this case. The use\\nof a unique pseudonym (John Doe, Jane Roe and the like) in all\\nthe cases filed by a particular filer would similarly inform the\\npublic in the two respects identified by the Tax Court. † Cf.\\nJames, 6 F.3d at 241-42 (remanding in part because the district\\ncourt did not consider the option of imposing conditions on the\\nplaintiffs’ use of pseudonyms that “could effectively relieve the\\ncourt’s expressed concerns”).\\n\\n III. Conclusion\\n\\n We conclude the Tax Court’s denial of the Appellant’s\\nrequest to proceed anonymously because he is a serial filer who\\nrelies upon public information was an abuse of discretion. See\\nKickapoo, 43 F.3d at 1497 (“An appellate court, in reviewing\\nfor an abuse of discretion, must consider ... whether the reasons\\ngiven reasonably support the conclusion”). Therefore, we\\nremand the case to the Tax Court to determine anew whether\\nthe Appellant has satisfied his burden under Rule 345(a) to set\\nforth a “sufficient, fact-specific basis for anonymity.”\\n\\n So ordered.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n†\\n Indeed, a dynamic pseudonym might itself convey the number of\\ncases that a particular person has filed, as in “John Doe (51)” for the\\nAppellant.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3474,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":7336934,"string":"7,336,934"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Ammar AL-BALUCHI a/k/a Ali Abdul Aziz Ali v. Mark T. ESPER, Secretary of Defense"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Al-Baluchi v. Esper"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-29"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"Civil Action. No. 08-2083 (PLF)"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Friedman\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254854/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FRIEDMAN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"FRIEDMAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336934/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Ammar AL-BALUCHI a/k/a Ali Abdul Aziz Ali v. Mark T. ESPER, Secretary of Defense\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-29\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Ammar AL-BALUCHI a/k/a Ali Abdul Aziz Ali v. Mark T. ESPER, Secretary of Defense\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-29\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3475,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4643874,"string":"4,643,874"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"In re: Sealed Case"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-30"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"19-5068"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"BEFORE: Tatel, Millett, and Pillard, Circuit Judges UNDER SEAL OPINION NOT AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"UNDER SEAL\\n\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n ____________\\nNo. 19-5068 September Term, 2018\\n 1:18-mc-00175-BAH\\n 1:18-mc-00176-BAH\\n 1:18-mc-00177-BAH\\n Filed On: July 30, 2019\\nIn re: Sealed Case,\\n\\n\\n------------------------------\\n\\nConsolidated with 19-5100, 19-5102, 19-5103\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n BEFORE: Tatel, Millett, and Pillard, Circuit Judges\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n UNDER SEAL OPINION\\n NOT AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4421127/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"TATEL"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MILLETT"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"PILLARD"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4643874/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: In re: Sealed Case\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-30\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUNDER SEAL\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n ____________\nNo. 19-5068 September Term, 2018\n 1:18-mc-00175-BAH\n 1:18-mc-00176-BAH\n 1:18-mc-00177-BAH\n Filed On: July 30, 2019\nIn re: Sealed Case,\n\n\n------------------------------\n\nConsolidated with 19-5100, 19-5102, 19-5103\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE: Tatel, Millett, and Pillard, Circuit Judges\n\n\n\n\n UNDER SEAL OPINION\n NOT AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: In re: Sealed Case\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-30\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUNDER SEAL\\n\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n ____________\\nNo. 19-5068 September Term, 2018\\n 1:18-mc-00175-BAH\\n 1:18-mc-00176-BAH\\n 1:18-mc-00177-BAH\\n Filed On: July 30, 2019\\nIn re: Sealed Case,\\n\\n\\n------------------------------\\n\\nConsolidated with 19-5100, 19-5102, 19-5103\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n BEFORE: Tatel, Millett, and Pillard, Circuit Judges\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n UNDER SEAL OPINION\\n NOT AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3476,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4643875,"string":"4,643,875"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Elisa R. CRUZ, Appellant v. Kevin K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Appellee"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Elisa Cruz v. Kevin McAleenan"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-30"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-5113"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Griffith, Wilkins, Williams\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKINS\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued December 10, 2018 Decided July 30, 2019\\n\\n No. 17-5113\\n\\n ELISA R. CRUZ,\\n APPELLANT\\n\\n v.\\n\\n KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE U.S.\\n DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,\\n APPELLEE\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the District of Columbia\\n (No. 1:16-cv-00039)\\n\\n\\n Tamara L. Miller argued the cause and filed the briefs for\\nappellant.\\n\\n Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the\\ncause for appellee. With him on the brief were Jessie K. Liu,\\nU.S. Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S.\\nAttorney.\\n\\n Before: GRIFFITH and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and\\nWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKINS.\\n\\f 2\\n WILKINS, Circuit Judge: Elisa Cruz alleges that the\\nDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) engaged in\\ndiscrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the\\nCivil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII).\\nDHS filed a motion for summary judgment, which the District\\nCourt granted over Cruz’s objection and request to take\\ndiscovery. Cruz appeals the District Court’s order granting\\nsummary judgment to DHS and denying Cruz’s motion to stay\\nproceedings to allow for discovery under Federal Rule of Civil\\nProcedure 56(d). For the reasons set forth below, we reverse\\nthe order in large part and remand for further proceedings.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Because we are reviewing the District Court’s grant of\\nsummary judgment, we take the following facts from the\\nevidence and read them in the light most favorable to Cruz, the\\nnon-moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in her\\nfavor. See, e.g., Ortiz-Diaz v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev.,\\nOffice of Inspector Gen., 867 F.3d 70, 72 (D.C. Cir. 2017).\\n\\n Cruz, an African-American female of Hispanic national\\norigin, was employed from 2007 to 2012 within DHS as the\\nChief Information Security Officer (CISO) at the Federal\\nEmergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Office of the\\nChief Information Officer (OCIO). The head of OCIO and\\nCruz’s second-level supervisor was Jeanne Etzel, a white\\nwoman. The Deputy Chief Information Officer for\\nAdministration and Cruz’s direct supervisor was Maria Roat,\\nalso a white woman.\\n\\n In early January 2012, Don Buskard, one of Cruz’s\\ncolleagues and a white man, sent Etzel an email reporting that\\nCruz had behaved inappropriately during three meetings.\\nEtzel forwarded the email to Roat and asked her to investigate\\n\\f 3\\nBuskard’s allegations. Roat enlisted Human Resources to\\ndiscuss the allegation and “requested assistance in determining\\nif a reassignment would be warranted.” J.A. 216.\\nReassignment would serve the purpose of limiting Cruz’s\\nsupervisory duties without changing her salary grade. Human\\nResource Specialist Kirsten Gunsolus advised Roat on how to\\nproceed. In an email to Roat dated January 4, 2012, Gunsolus\\nwrote:\\n\\n [G]iven the fact that there are conduct issues regarding\\n Ms. Cruz, I would suggest that I conduct a fact finding\\n session and gather all the documentation surrounding\\n her conduct issues during the past year that you have\\n gathered, and then I would make a recommendation for\\n the reassignment to you from the [Labor and Employee\\n Relations] office. That way, if Ms. Cruz decides to\\n pursue any legal avenues, you’d have that\\n documentation and recommendation as backup for the\\n reassignment.\\n\\nJ.A. 104.\\n\\n Over the next few weeks, Gunsolus began a “limited\\nadministrative inquiry” into allegations of Cruz’s workplace\\nconduct. J.A. 216. In addition to interviewing several of\\nCruz’s colleagues, Gunsolus reviewed emails from Cruz to\\nvarious people, meeting notes, and the report of a previous\\ninvestigation concerning Cruz. Gunsolus’s report notes that\\n“none of [Cruz’s] employees, except one that [did not] have\\nmuch interaction with her” wanted to participate in the\\ninvestigation. J.A. 217. Additionally, Gunsolus did not meet\\nwith or interview Cruz in preparing her informal report.\\n\\n On January 26, 2012, Gunsolus completed her\\ninvestigation. Gunsolus concluded that “there is general\\n\\f 4\\nconsensus among the peers and employees that work with Ms.\\nCruz that she is often abrasive, rude, yells, and is\\ncondescending . . . .” J.A. 218. Gunsolus corroborated\\nBuskard’s allegations that Cruz had behaved unprofessionally\\nat recent meetings; she would “‘take over’ the meeting in a\\nnegative way” and not follow the meeting agenda. J.A. 217.\\nDuring one meeting conducted via conference call, Cruz did\\nnot announce “several of her subordinates” who were with her\\nin her office, “nor did any of them speak up at any time during\\nthe meeting.” Id. Indeed, Gunsolus found that the general\\nfeeling among her peers was that Cruz’s employees were too\\nafraid to speak up in her presence. Gunsolus ultimately\\ndetermined that Roat’s request to reassign Cruz to another\\nposition with fewer supervisory responsibilities was\\nreasonable. Moreover, Gunsolus approved of Roat sending\\nCruz a written warning that would serve to “put her on notice\\nthat she needs to improve her conduct in her interactions with\\npeople.” J.A. 218.\\n\\n On March 14, 2012, Cruz received a written warning from\\nRoat. The warning explained that one of Cruz’s colleagues had\\nreported her for inappropriate conduct at meetings and that\\nthere had been an informal inquiry into these allegations. Cruz\\nwas notified that she was to be detailed for ninety days from\\nFEMA OCIO to a position with DHS Headquarters OCIO. In\\nresponse to the written warning and reassignment, Cruz sought\\ncounseling from FEMA’s Equal Employment Opportunity\\n(EEO) office. In a March 29, 2012 email, Roat disseminated a\\nnew OCIO organizational chart showing Cruz as Deputy CISO,\\nrather than CISO, her previous title. This reassignment, which\\ndid not affect her paygrade, became effective on April 8, 2012.\\n\\n On June 6, 2012, Cruz filed a formal complaint with\\nFEMA, alleging that she had been subject to discrimination\\nbased on her race, color, national origin, and sex. One week\\n\\f 5\\nlater, on June 13, 2012, Roat asked DHS to extend Cruz’s detail\\nfor four to six weeks so that the person taking over her former\\nposition could be onboarded before she returned. On June 20,\\n2012, Cruz’s detail to DHS Headquarters was extended.\\n\\n On October 1, 2012, Roat informed Cruz that, upon\\nreturning from her detail, she would be placed in a new position\\nrather than assuming her already reassigned role of FEMA\\nDeputy CISO. She was to become the Chief of the Resource\\nManagement Branch within the OCIO. Cruz objected to the\\nreassignment because she did not feel qualified to perform the\\nnecessary duties. However, in or around December 2012,\\nFEMA’s Human Resources office conducted an inquiry and\\ndetermined that Cruz was sufficiently qualified for the new\\nrole. Based on the June 2012 extension of her detail and\\nOctober 2012 second reassignment, on February 6, 2013, Cruz\\namended her administrative complaint to include allegations of\\nretaliation. Over two years later, on September 25, 2015, an\\nadministrative law judge for the Equal Employment\\nOpportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a decision in favor of\\nFEMA. On October 14, 2015, EEOC issued its final order,\\nwhich concluded that no discrimination or retaliation had\\noccurred.\\n\\n On January 8, 2016, Cruz filed her federal complaint\\nagainst the Secretary of DHS, bringing claims of unlawful\\ndiscrimination and retaliation under Title VII. On April 28,\\n2016, DHS answered and then moved for summary judgment\\nthree weeks later. Cruz opposed the motion in substance and\\nargued that it was premature given the lack of discovery. Her\\ncounsel also submitted an affidavit under Rule 56(d) to support\\nher argument. On March 15, 2017, the District Court granted\\nsummary judgment to DHS. The court found that DHS’s\\nexplanation for its decision to detail and reassign Cruz was not\\npretextual.\\n\\f 6\\n Cruz now appeals. Our review of the District Court’s grant\\nof summary judgment is de novo. Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156\\nF.3d 1284, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc). Summary\\njudgment is warranted where there is “no genuine dispute as to\\nany material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a\\nmatter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute about a\\nmaterial fact “is ‘genuine’ . . . if the evidence is such that a\\nreasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving\\nparty.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248\\n(1986). We review the District Court’s decision to deny\\ndiscovery under Rule 56(d) for abuse of discretion. Pollack v.\\nDuff, 793 F.3d 34, 48 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).\\n\\n II.\\n\\n We first consider whether the District Court erred in\\ngranting summary judgment without permitting Cruz to take\\nadditional discovery. Because the District Court erroneously\\nconcluded that the evidence sought by Cruz could not create a\\ndispute of material fact as to whether DHS’s proffered reasons\\nfor taking adverse action were pretextual, we vacate the\\ndecision of the District Court.\\n\\n Title VII makes it unlawful for a federal employer to take\\n“personnel actions affecting employees” and motivated by\\n“any discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national\\norigin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(a). Under the burden-shifting\\nframework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.\\n792 (1973), a Title VII plaintiff seeking to prove disparate\\ntreatment through indirect, circumstantial evidence “must first\\nestablish a prima facie case of prohibited discrimination.” Aka,\\n156 F.3d at 1288. Once she has done so, the burden then shifts\\nto the employer to “articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory\\nreasons for the challenged employment decision.” Id. If the\\nemployer has properly offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory\\n\\f 7\\nreasons for its action, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to\\nprove that the reasons are a pretext for discrimination. See\\nFigueroa v. Pompeo, 923 F.3d 1078, 1087-88 (D.C. Cir. 2019);\\nBrady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490, 494 (D.C.\\nCir. 2008).\\n\\n Cruz alleges that DHS violated Title VII in removing her\\nfrom her position as FEMA CISO and placing her on detail to\\nDHS’s Headquarters, and in “reassigning and demoting” her to\\nthe position of Deputy CISO, because they did so on the basis\\nof her sex, race, national origin, and color. J.A. 15. According\\nto Cruz, she was subjected to disparate treatment as compared\\nto similarly situated white and non-African-American male\\nemployees.\\n\\n DHS moved for summary judgment after Cruz filed the\\ncomplaint, but before any discovery had taken place, stating\\nthat it had detailed and reassigned Cruz because of complaints\\nregarding her “unprofessional and inappropriate conduct while\\nserving as the CISO.” J.A. 39. Cruz concedes that DHS\\npresented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, and argues\\ninstead that it is pretextual. In addition to opposing the motion\\non the merits, Cruz’s counsel filed an affidavit pursuant to Rule\\n56(d) requesting that summary judgment proceedings be stayed\\npending discovery. Under Rule 56(d), “[i]f a nonmovant\\nshows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it\\ncannot present facts essential to justify its opposition,” the\\ncourt has discretion to, among other options, “allow time to\\nobtain affidavits . . . or to take discovery.” Cruz contends that\\nthe District Court abused its discretion when it denied her the\\nopportunity to take discovery. Her affidavit, in relevant part,\\nrequested discovery on:\\n\\n The conduct of . . . Ms. Maria Roat toward the Plaintiff, as\\n well as toward Black employees, female employees, and\\n\\f 8\\n employees who had engaged in protected activity, versus\\n her conduct toward employees who did not share\\n Plaintiff’s protected characteristics . . .\\n\\n The conduct of . . . Ms. Jeanne Etzel toward the Plaintiff,\\n as well as toward Black employees, female employees,\\n and employees who had engaged in protected activity,\\n versus her conduct toward employees who did not share\\n Plaintiff’s protected characteristics.\\n\\nJ.A. 295.\\n\\n In denying Cruz’s Rule 56(d) request, the District Court\\nstated it was “extremely unlikely” that evidence that other\\nemployees in DHS were treated more leniently could raise a\\nmaterial dispute over whether FEMA’s justifications were\\npretextual. Cruz v. Kelly, 241 F. Supp. 3d 107, 112 (D.D.C.\\n2017). Not so. “[C]omparative information concerning an\\nemployer’s treatment of [protected groups] is relevant evidence\\nin an individual discrimination claim against that employer.\\nSuch evidence can be used . . . to show that the employer’s\\nstated reasons for the challenged actions are a pretext for\\ndiscrimination.” Minority Employees at NASA (MEAN) v.\\nBeggs, 723 F.2d 958, 962 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (per curiam).\\nAccordingly, evidence that white employees, or male\\nemployees, were disciplined less severely for the sort of\\nbehavior for which Cruz was disciplined could create a dispute\\nof material fact about whether FEMA’s justification was a\\npretext for discrimination.\\n\\n The District Court also found that evidence of other\\nsimilarly situated employees being treated more favorably\\nwould be irrelevant because of the “strong evidence” that the\\nDHS’s actions were independent of Cruz’s protected\\ncharacteristics. Cruz, 241 F. Supp. 3d at 112. Specifically, the\\n\\f 9\\ncourt was referencing the investigation that Gunsolus\\nconducted at the request of Roat and Etzel. Even if the\\nGunsolus report were truly independent,1 the evidence Cruz\\nsought nonetheless would be material to the question of pretext.\\nThis Court has never held that the existence of an independent\\ninvestigation is dispositive on the question of pretext. For\\nexample, in Brady, where an employer offered, among other\\nevidence, that a misconduct incident had been “thoroughly and\\nindependently investigated,” we noted that the plaintiff could\\nattempt to discredit this nondiscriminatory reason with\\nevidence that the employer treated other employees lacking\\nprotected characteristics more favorably in the same factual\\ncircumstances. See 520 F.3d at 495; see also Wheeler v.\\nGeorgetown Univ. Hosp., 812 F.3d 1109, 1115 (D.C. Cir.\\n2016) (“Showing that others outside the plaintiff’s class have\\nbeen more favorably treated is ‘[e]specially relevant’ to a\\ndemonstration of pretext.” (quoting McDonnell Douglas, 411\\nU.S. at 804)); Morris v. McCarthy, 825 F.3d 658, 672 (D.C.\\nCir. 2016) (“The ‘mere conduct of an independent\\ninvestigation’ does not break the causal chain between a\\nsupervisor’s bias and an adverse employment action.” (quoting\\nStaub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411, 421 (2001))).\\n\\n We find that the evidence sought by Cruz could create a\\ngenuine dispute of material fact as to whether DHS’s proffered\\nreasons for taking adverse action were pretextual. The District\\nCourt’s conclusion to the contrary rested on legal errors and\\n\\n1\\n Although we vacate the District Court’s denial of Cruz’s Rule 56(d)\\nrequest, the record as read in her favor could support an inference\\nthat Gunsolus’s investigation was merely a post hoc effort to shore\\nup Roat and Etzel’s decision to discipline Cruz. After meeting with\\nRoat, Gunsolus agreed that she “would make a recommendation for\\nthe reassignment,” thus providing Roat “documentation and\\nrecommendation as backup for the reassignment” in the event that\\nCruz took legal action, J.A. 104, as she has done here.\\n\\f 10\\nwas thus an abuse of discretion. See Koon v. United States, 518\\nU.S. 81, 100 (1996) (“A district court by definition abuses its\\ndiscretion when it makes an error of law.”). Accordingly, with\\nrespect to Cruz’s disparate treatment claim, we vacate the\\njudgment of the District Court and remand the case for further\\nproceedings. On remand, the District Court is free to consider,\\nconsistent with this opinion, whether Cruz’s Rule 56(d)\\naffidavit otherwise met all the standards set by Convertino v.\\nUnited States Department of Justice, 684 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir.\\n2012), including whether the affidavit offered a “reasonable\\nbasis” to suggest that discovery would produce the evidence\\nrequired, Carpenter v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 174 F.3d 231,\\n237 (D.C. Cir. 1999).\\n\\n III.\\n\\n We next consider whether the District Court erred in\\ngranting summary judgment in DHS’s favor with respect to\\nCruz’s retaliation claims. We find that summary judgment was\\ninappropriate with respect to Cruz’s claim that her\\nreassignment to the Resource Management Branch was\\nretaliatory. With respect to DHS’s initial decision to extend\\nher detail, we find that summary judgment was appropriate\\nbecause Cruz did not create a genuine dispute of material fact.\\n\\n Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision prohibits employer\\nactions that discriminate against an employee because the\\nemployee has “made a charge, testified, assisted, or\\nparticipated in any manner” in a Title VII “investigation,\\nproceeding, or hearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a); see also\\nFigueroa, 923 F.3d at 1083 (noting that Title VII’s substantive\\nprotections apply to federal-sector cases). We analyze Title\\nVII retaliation claims using the McDonnell Douglas\\nframework discussed above. See Geleta v. Gray, 645 F.3d 408,\\n410 (D.C. Cir. 2011). To establish a prima facie case of\\n\\f 11\\nretaliation, a plaintiff must show “(1) that he engaged in\\nstatutorily protected activity; (2) that he suffered a materially\\nadverse action by his employer; and (3) that a causal link\\nconnects the two.” Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670, 677 (D.C.\\nCir. 2009). If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the\\nburden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate and\\nnonretaliatory reason for taking the adverse employment\\naction. See id; see also Figueroa, 923 F.3d at 1087-88. If the\\nemployer successfully meets this burden, “whether the plaintiff\\nhas made out a prima facie case is no longer relevant.” Geleta,\\n645 F.3d at 411. At this point, “the district court need not –\\nand should not – decide whether the plaintiff actually made out\\na prima facie case,” Brady, 520 F.3d at 494, but rather “should\\n[] proceed[] to the ultimate issue of retaliation vel non,” Jones,\\n557 F.3d at 678. In determining whether a reasonable jury\\ncould infer retaliation, the court reviews “all the evidence,\\nwhich includes not only the prima facie case but also the\\nevidence the plaintiff offers to attack the employer’s proffered\\nexplanation for its action and other evidence of retaliation.”\\nGaujacq v. EDF, Inc., 601 F.3d 565, 577 (D.C. Cir. 2010)\\n(quoting Jones, 557 F.3d at 677).\\n\\n DHS sufficiently presented a legitimate, nonretaliatory\\nexplanation for reassigning Cruz to the Resource Management\\nBranch: there was a need for a GS-15 employee with\\nmanagerial experience and she fit that role. Thus, the District\\nCourt should not have assessed Cruz’s prima facie case but\\nrather should have proceeded to determine whether Cruz’s\\nevidence creates a genuine factual dispute on the issue of\\nretaliation. We review the evidence ourselves, cf. Jones, 557\\nF.3d at 679, and conclude that it does.\\n\\n While the District Court concluded that all of the allegedly\\nretaliatory acts were foreordained by the initial disciplinary\\ndecision, the record could reasonably support a conclusion that\\n\\f 12\\nthe decision to reassign Cruz outside the information security\\nfield was distinct from that initial action. DHS had\\ncontemplated Cruz would take a ninety-day detail followed by\\nher return as Deputy CISO, a position within the Information\\nTechnology Security Branch, and with reduced supervisory\\nresponsibilities. As DHS reasoned, reassigning Cruz to Deputy\\nCISO would allow her to “focus more on [her] job and [] allow\\nfor less interactions with people.” J.A. 192. This proposed\\naction was reflected in the reorganization chart issued to\\nrelevant staff shortly after Cruz had received the written\\nwarning. Things changed, however, after Cruz engaged in\\nprotected activity – namely, filing a formal complaint of\\ndiscrimination with FEMA’s EEO office. After this point,\\nDHS not only extended her detail for several additional months\\nbut also reassigned her to the Resource Management Branch,\\nwhich does not involve information security. Moreover, this\\nnew position carried roughly the same supervisory duties as the\\nposition from which Cruz was originally detailed away.\\nAlthough the District Court suggests that DHS was always\\nlooking for a position for Cruz that “would not require her to\\nsupervise the employees who had complained about her\\nbehavior,” Cruz, 241 F. Supp. 3d at 113, the record lacks any\\nsuch evidence. In fact, on June 19, 2012, when Roat met with\\nCruz to discuss the initial detail extension, she told Cruz that\\nshe should plan on returning to the Information Technology\\nSecurity Branch as Deputy after her replacement had fully\\ntransitioned. In so doing, Cruz would not have been insulated\\nfrom supervising the employees who complained about her. In\\nshort, the record evidence does not indisputably fit with the\\nDistrict Court’s theory that, all along, DHS wanted to “find[]\\nher an altogether different position.” Cruz, 241 F. Supp. 3d at\\n113.\\n\\n This evidence also undermines DHS’s legitimate\\nexplanation for reassigning Cruz to a different division.\\n\\f 13\\nIndeed, one might struggle to reconcile DHS’s explanation that\\nit assigned Cruz to the Resource Management Branch because\\nof her supervisory skills with its explanation that it removed\\nher from the CISO position in order to lessen her interpersonal\\nand managerial duties. Such inconsistency could be “probative\\nof pretext,” Geleta, 645 F.3d at 413 (quoting EEOC v. Sears\\nRoebuck & Co., 243 F.3d 846, 853 (4th Cir. 2001)), and is\\nusually adequate to permit a jury to assess the retaliation claim,\\nsee George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405, 413 (D.C. Cir. 2005); see\\nalso Jones, 557 F.3d at 679.\\n\\n Because DHS had properly articulated its legitimate,\\nnonretaliatory reason for the reassignment, we reject the\\nDistrict Court’s grant of summary judgment on the ground that\\nCruz’s prima facie case was lacking, and we reverse because\\nthe evidence, taken together, was sufficient for a reasonable\\njury to make an inference of retaliation.\\n\\n Cruz has not, however, created a genuine dispute of\\nmaterial fact with respect to the initial decision to extend her\\ndetail. DHS proffered evidence showing that it initially\\nextended Cruz’s detail for four to six weeks because more time\\nwas needed to onboard her replacement as permanent CISO.\\nCruz has neither offered evidence to call that legitimate,\\nnonretaliatory explanation into question, nor has she requested\\nthe opportunity to take further discovery relevant to that aspect\\nof the case. Accordingly, summary judgment on this aspect of\\nher retaliation claim was warranted.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n The District Court erred in granting summary judgment on\\nCruz’s disparate treatment claim and her retaliation claim\\nrelating to her reassignment to the Resource Management\\nBranch, but it properly granted summary judgment on her\\n\\f 14\\nretaliation claim relating to DHS’s initial decision to extend her\\ndetail. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is\\naffirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded\\nfor further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\n So ordered.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4421128/\", \"author_raw\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKINS\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"GRIFFITH"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"WILKINS"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"WILLIAMS"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4643875/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Elisa R. CRUZ, Appellant v. Kevin K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Appellee\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-30\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued December 10, 2018 Decided July 30, 2019\n\n No. 17-5113\n\n ELISA R. CRUZ,\n APPELLANT\n\n v.\n\n KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE U.S.\n DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,\n APPELLEE\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the District of Columbia\n (No. 1:16-cv-00039)\n\n\n Tamara L. Miller argued the cause and filed the briefs for\nappellant.\n\n Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the\ncause for appellee. With him on the brief were Jessie K. Liu,\nU.S. Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S.\nAttorney.\n\n Before: GRIFFITH and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and\nWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.\n\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKINS.\n\f 2\n WILKINS, Circuit Judge: Elisa Cruz alleges that the\nDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) engaged in\ndiscrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the\nCivil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII).\nDHS filed a motion for summary judgment, which the District\nCourt granted over Cruz’s objection and request to take\ndiscovery. Cruz appeals the District Court’s order granting\nsummary judgment to DHS and denying Cruz’s motion to stay\nproceedings to allow for discovery under Federal Rule of Civil\nProcedure 56(d). For the reasons set forth below, we reverse\nthe order in large part and remand for further proceedings.\n\n I.\n\n Because we are reviewing the District Court’s grant of\nsummary judgment, we take the following facts from the\nevidence and read them in the light most favorable to Cruz, the\nnon-moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in her\nfavor. See, e.g., Ortiz-Diaz v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev.,\nOffice of Inspector Gen., 867 F.3d 70, 72 (D.C. Cir. 2017).\n\n Cruz, an African-American female of Hispanic national\norigin, was employed from 2007 to 2012 within DHS as the\nChief Information Security Officer (CISO) at the Federal\nEmergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Office of the\nChief Information Officer (OCIO). The head of OCIO and\nCruz’s second-level supervisor was Jeanne Etzel, a white\nwoman. The Deputy Chief Information Officer for\nAdministration and Cruz’s direct supervisor was Maria Roat,\nalso a white woman.\n\n In early January 2012, Don Buskard, one of Cruz’s\ncolleagues and a white man, sent Etzel an email reporting that\nCruz had behaved inappropriately during three meetings.\nEtzel forwarded the email to Roat and asked her to investigate\n\f 3\nBuskard’s allegations. Roat enlisted Human Resources to\ndiscuss the allegation and “requested assistance in determining\nif a reassignment would be warranted.” J.A. 216.\nReassignment would serve the purpose of limiting Cruz’s\nsupervisory duties without changing her salary grade. Human\nResource Specialist Kirsten Gunsolus advised Roat on how to\nproceed. In an email to Roat dated January 4, 2012, Gunsolus\nwrote:\n\n [G]iven the fact that there are conduct issues regarding\n Ms. Cruz, I would suggest that I conduct a fact finding\n session and gather all the documentation surrounding\n her conduct issues during the past year that you have\n gathered, and then I would make a recommendation for\n the reassignment to you from the [Labor and Employee\n Relations] office. That way, if Ms. Cruz decides to\n pursue any legal avenues, you’d have that\n documentation and recommendation as backup for the\n reassignment.\n\nJ.A. 104.\n\n Over the next few weeks, Gunsolus began a “limited\nadministrative inquiry” into allegations of Cruz’s workplace\nconduct. J.A. 216. In addition to interviewing several of\nCruz’s colleagues, Gunsolus reviewed emails from Cruz to\nvarious people, meeting notes, and the report of a previous\ninvestigation concerning Cruz. Gunsolus’s report notes that\n“none of [Cruz’s] employees, except one that [did not] have\nmuch interaction with her” wanted to participate in the\ninvestigation. J.A. 217. Additionally, Gunsolus did not meet\nwith or interview Cruz in preparing her informal report.\n\n On January 26, 2012, Gunsolus completed her\ninvestigation. Gunsolus concluded that “there is general\n\f 4\nconsensus among the peers and employees that work with Ms.\nCruz that she is often abrasive, rude, yells, and is\ncondescending . . . .” J.A. 218. Gunsolus corroborated\nBuskard’s allegations that Cruz had behaved unprofessionally\nat recent meetings; she would “‘take over’ the meeting in a\nnegative way” and not follow the meeting agenda. J.A. 217.\nDuring one meeting conducted via conference call, Cruz did\nnot announce “several of her subordinates” who were with her\nin her office, “nor did any of them speak up at any time during\nthe meeting.” Id. Indeed, Gunsolus found that the general\nfeeling among her peers was that Cruz’s employees were too\nafraid to speak up in her presence. Gunsolus ultimately\ndetermined that Roat’s request to reassign Cruz to another\nposition with fewer supervisory responsibilities was\nreasonable. Moreover, Gunsolus approved of Roat sending\nCruz a written warning that would serve to “put her on notice\nthat she needs to improve her conduct in her interactions with\npeople.” J.A. 218.\n\n On March 14, 2012, Cruz received a written warning from\nRoat. The warning explained that one of Cruz’s colleagues had\nreported her for inappropriate conduct at meetings and that\nthere had been an informal inquiry into these allegations. Cruz\nwas notified that she was to be detailed for ninety days from\nFEMA OCIO to a position with DHS Headquarters OCIO. In\nresponse to the written warning and reassignment, Cruz sought\ncounseling from FEMA’s Equal Employment Opportunity\n(EEO) office. In a March 29, 2012 email, Roat disseminated a\nnew OCIO organizational chart showing Cruz as Deputy CISO,\nrather than CISO, her previous title. This reassignment, which\ndid not affect her paygrade, became effective on April 8, 2012.\n\n On June 6, 2012, Cruz filed a formal complaint with\nFEMA, alleging that she had been subject to discrimination\nbased on her race, color, national origin, and sex. One week\n\f 5\nlater, on June 13, 2012, Roat asked DHS to extend Cruz’s detail\nfor four to six weeks so that the person taking over her former\nposition could be onboarded before she returned. On June 20,\n2012, Cruz’s detail to DHS Headquarters was extended.\n\n On October 1, 2012, Roat informed Cruz that, upon\nreturning from her detail, she would be placed in a new position\nrather than assuming her already reassigned role of FEMA\nDeputy CISO. She was to become the Chief of the Resource\nManagement Branch within the OCIO. Cruz objected to the\nreassignment because she did not feel qualified to perform the\nnecessary duties. However, in or around December 2012,\nFEMA’s Human Resources office conducted an inquiry and\ndetermined that Cruz was sufficiently qualified for the new\nrole. Based on the June 2012 extension of her detail and\nOctober 2012 second reassignment, on February 6, 2013, Cruz\namended her administrative complaint to include allegations of\nretaliation. Over two years later, on September 25, 2015, an\nadministrative law judge for the Equal Employment\nOpportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a decision in favor of\nFEMA. On October 14, 2015, EEOC issued its final order,\nwhich concluded that no discrimination or retaliation had\noccurred.\n\n On January 8, 2016, Cruz filed her federal complaint\nagainst the Secretary of DHS, bringing claims of unlawful\ndiscrimination and retaliation under Title VII. On April 28,\n2016, DHS answered and then moved for summary judgment\nthree weeks later. Cruz opposed the motion in substance and\nargued that it was premature given the lack of discovery. Her\ncounsel also submitted an affidavit under Rule 56(d) to support\nher argument. On March 15, 2017, the District Court granted\nsummary judgment to DHS. The court found that DHS’s\nexplanation for its decision to detail and reassign Cruz was not\npretextual.\n\f 6\n Cruz now appeals. Our review of the District Court’s grant\nof summary judgment is de novo. Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156\nF.3d 1284, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc). Summary\njudgment is warranted where there is “no genuine dispute as to\nany material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a\nmatter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute about a\nmaterial fact “is ‘genuine’ . . . if the evidence is such that a\nreasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving\nparty.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248\n(1986). We review the District Court’s decision to deny\ndiscovery under Rule 56(d) for abuse of discretion. Pollack v.\nDuff, 793 F.3d 34, 48 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).\n\n II.\n\n We first consider whether the District Court erred in\ngranting summary judgment without permitting Cruz to take\nadditional discovery. Because the District Court erroneously\nconcluded that the evidence sought by Cruz could not create a\ndispute of material fact as to whether DHS’s proffered reasons\nfor taking adverse action were pretextual, we vacate the\ndecision of the District Court.\n\n Title VII makes it unlawful for a federal employer to take\n“personnel actions affecting employees” and motivated by\n“any discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national\norigin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(a). Under the burden-shifting\nframework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.\n792 (1973), a Title VII plaintiff seeking to prove disparate\ntreatment through indirect, circumstantial evidence “must first\nestablish a prima facie case of prohibited discrimination.” Aka,\n156 F.3d at 1288. Once she has done so, the burden then shifts\nto the employer to “articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory\nreasons for the challenged employment decision.” Id. If the\nemployer has properly offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory\n\f 7\nreasons for its action, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to\nprove that the reasons are a pretext for discrimination. See\nFigueroa v. Pompeo, 923 F.3d 1078, 1087-88 (D.C. Cir. 2019);\nBrady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490, 494 (D.C.\nCir. 2008).\n\n Cruz alleges that DHS violated Title VII in removing her\nfrom her position as FEMA CISO and placing her on detail to\nDHS’s Headquarters, and in “reassigning and demoting” her to\nthe position of Deputy CISO, because they did so on the basis\nof her sex, race, national origin, and color. J.A. 15. According\nto Cruz, she was subjected to disparate treatment as compared\nto similarly situated white and non-African-American male\nemployees.\n\n DHS moved for summary judgment after Cruz filed the\ncomplaint, but before any discovery had taken place, stating\nthat it had detailed and reassigned Cruz because of complaints\nregarding her “unprofessional and inappropriate conduct while\nserving as the CISO.” J.A. 39. Cruz concedes that DHS\npresented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, and argues\ninstead that it is pretextual. In addition to opposing the motion\non the merits, Cruz’s counsel filed an affidavit pursuant to Rule\n56(d) requesting that summary judgment proceedings be stayed\npending discovery. Under Rule 56(d), “[i]f a nonmovant\nshows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it\ncannot present facts essential to justify its opposition,” the\ncourt has discretion to, among other options, “allow time to\nobtain affidavits . . . or to take discovery.” Cruz contends that\nthe District Court abused its discretion when it denied her the\nopportunity to take discovery. Her affidavit, in relevant part,\nrequested discovery on:\n\n The conduct of . . . Ms. Maria Roat toward the Plaintiff, as\n well as toward Black employees, female employees, and\n\f 8\n employees who had engaged in protected activity, versus\n her conduct toward employees who did not share\n Plaintiff’s protected characteristics . . .\n\n The conduct of . . . Ms. Jeanne Etzel toward the Plaintiff,\n as well as toward Black employees, female employees,\n and employees who had engaged in protected activity,\n versus her conduct toward employees who did not share\n Plaintiff’s protected characteristics.\n\nJ.A. 295.\n\n In denying Cruz’s Rule 56(d) request, the District Court\nstated it was “extremely unlikely” that evidence that other\nemployees in DHS were treated more leniently could raise a\nmaterial dispute over whether FEMA’s justifications were\npretextual. Cruz v. Kelly, 241 F. Supp. 3d 107, 112 (D.D.C.\n2017). Not so. “[C]omparative information concerning an\nemployer’s treatment of [protected groups] is relevant evidence\nin an individual discrimination claim against that employer.\nSuch evidence can be used . . . to show that the employer’s\nstated reasons for the challenged actions are a pretext for\ndiscrimination.” Minority Employees at NASA (MEAN) v.\nBeggs, 723 F.2d 958, 962 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (per curiam).\nAccordingly, evidence that white employees, or male\nemployees, were disciplined less severely for the sort of\nbehavior for which Cruz was disciplined could create a dispute\nof material fact about whether FEMA’s justification was a\npretext for discrimination.\n\n The District Court also found that evidence of other\nsimilarly situated employees being treated more favorably\nwould be irrelevant because of the “strong evidence” that the\nDHS’s actions were independent of Cruz’s protected\ncharacteristics. Cruz, 241 F. Supp. 3d at 112. Specifically, the\n\f 9\ncourt was referencing the investigation that Gunsolus\nconducted at the request of Roat and Etzel. Even if the\nGunsolus report were truly independent,1 the evidence Cruz\nsought nonetheless would be material to the question of pretext.\nThis Court has never held that the existence of an independent\ninvestigation is dispositive on the question of pretext. For\nexample, in Brady, where an employer offered, among other\nevidence, that a misconduct incident had been “thoroughly and\nindependently investigated,” we noted that the plaintiff could\nattempt to discredit this nondiscriminatory reason with\nevidence that the employer treated other employees lacking\nprotected characteristics more favorably in the same factual\ncircumstances. See 520 F.3d at 495; see also Wheeler v.\nGeorgetown Univ. Hosp., 812 F.3d 1109, 1115 (D.C. Cir.\n2016) (“Showing that others outside the plaintiff’s class have\nbeen more favorably treated is ‘[e]specially relevant’ to a\ndemonstration of pretext.” (quoting McDonnell Douglas, 411\nU.S. at 804)); Morris v. McCarthy, 825 F.3d 658, 672 (D.C.\nCir. 2016) (“The ‘mere conduct of an independent\ninvestigation’ does not break the causal chain between a\nsupervisor’s bias and an adverse employment action.” (quoting\nStaub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411, 421 (2001))).\n\n We find that the evidence sought by Cruz could create a\ngenuine dispute of material fact as to whether DHS’s proffered\nreasons for taking adverse action were pretextual. The District\nCourt’s conclusion to the contrary rested on legal errors and\n\n1\n Although we vacate the District Court’s denial of Cruz’s Rule 56(d)\nrequest, the record as read in her favor could support an inference\nthat Gunsolus’s investigation was merely a post hoc effort to shore\nup Roat and Etzel’s decision to discipline Cruz. After meeting with\nRoat, Gunsolus agreed that she “would make a recommendation for\nthe reassignment,” thus providing Roat “documentation and\nrecommendation as backup for the reassignment” in the event that\nCruz took legal action, J.A. 104, as she has done here.\n\f 10\nwas thus an abuse of discretion. See Koon v. United States, 518\nU.S. 81, 100 (1996) (“A district court by definition abuses its\ndiscretion when it makes an error of law.”). Accordingly, with\nrespect to Cruz’s disparate treatment claim, we vacate the\njudgment of the District Court and remand the case for further\nproceedings. On remand, the District Court is free to consider,\nconsistent with this opinion, whether Cruz’s Rule 56(d)\naffidavit otherwise met all the standards set by Convertino v.\nUnited States Department of Justice, 684 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir.\n2012), including whether the affidavit offered a “reasonable\nbasis” to suggest that discovery would produce the evidence\nrequired, Carpenter v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 174 F.3d 231,\n237 (D.C. Cir. 1999).\n\n III.\n\n We next consider whether the District Court erred in\ngranting summary judgment in DHS’s favor with respect to\nCruz’s retaliation claims. We find that summary judgment was\ninappropriate with respect to Cruz’s claim that her\nreassignment to the Resource Management Branch was\nretaliatory. With respect to DHS’s initial decision to extend\nher detail, we find that summary judgment was appropriate\nbecause Cruz did not create a genuine dispute of material fact.\n\n Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision prohibits employer\nactions that discriminate against an employee because the\nemployee has “made a charge, testified, assisted, or\nparticipated in any manner” in a Title VII “investigation,\nproceeding, or hearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a); see also\nFigueroa, 923 F.3d at 1083 (noting that Title VII’s substantive\nprotections apply to federal-sector cases). We analyze Title\nVII retaliation claims using the McDonnell Douglas\nframework discussed above. See Geleta v. Gray, 645 F.3d 408,\n410 (D.C. Cir. 2011). To establish a prima facie case of\n\f 11\nretaliation, a plaintiff must show “(1) that he engaged in\nstatutorily protected activity; (2) that he suffered a materially\nadverse action by his employer; and (3) that a causal link\nconnects the two.” Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670, 677 (D.C.\nCir. 2009). If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the\nburden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate and\nnonretaliatory reason for taking the adverse employment\naction. See id; see also Figueroa, 923 F.3d at 1087-88. If the\nemployer successfully meets this burden, “whether the plaintiff\nhas made out a prima facie case is no longer relevant.” Geleta,\n645 F.3d at 411. At this point, “the district court need not –\nand should not – decide whether the plaintiff actually made out\na prima facie case,” Brady, 520 F.3d at 494, but rather “should\n[] proceed[] to the ultimate issue of retaliation vel non,” Jones,\n557 F.3d at 678. In determining whether a reasonable jury\ncould infer retaliation, the court reviews “all the evidence,\nwhich includes not only the prima facie case but also the\nevidence the plaintiff offers to attack the employer’s proffered\nexplanation for its action and other evidence of retaliation.”\nGaujacq v. EDF, Inc., 601 F.3d 565, 577 (D.C. Cir. 2010)\n(quoting Jones, 557 F.3d at 677).\n\n DHS sufficiently presented a legitimate, nonretaliatory\nexplanation for reassigning Cruz to the Resource Management\nBranch: there was a need for a GS-15 employee with\nmanagerial experience and she fit that role. Thus, the District\nCourt should not have assessed Cruz’s prima facie case but\nrather should have proceeded to determine whether Cruz’s\nevidence creates a genuine factual dispute on the issue of\nretaliation. We review the evidence ourselves, cf. Jones, 557\nF.3d at 679, and conclude that it does.\n\n While the District Court concluded that all of the allegedly\nretaliatory acts were foreordained by the initial disciplinary\ndecision, the record could reasonably support a conclusion that\n\f 12\nthe decision to reassign Cruz outside the information security\nfield was distinct from that initial action. DHS had\ncontemplated Cruz would take a ninety-day detail followed by\nher return as Deputy CISO, a position within the Information\nTechnology Security Branch, and with reduced supervisory\nresponsibilities. As DHS reasoned, reassigning Cruz to Deputy\nCISO would allow her to “focus more on [her] job and [] allow\nfor less interactions with people.” J.A. 192. This proposed\naction was reflected in the reorganization chart issued to\nrelevant staff shortly after Cruz had received the written\nwarning. Things changed, however, after Cruz engaged in\nprotected activity – namely, filing a formal complaint of\ndiscrimination with FEMA’s EEO office. After this point,\nDHS not only extended her detail for several additional months\nbut also reassigned her to the Resource Management Branch,\nwhich does not involve information security. Moreover, this\nnew position carried roughly the same supervisory duties as the\nposition from which Cruz was originally detailed away.\nAlthough the District Court suggests that DHS was always\nlooking for a position for Cruz that “would not require her to\nsupervise the employees who had complained about her\nbehavior,” Cruz, 241 F. Supp. 3d at 113, the record lacks any\nsuch evidence. In fact, on June 19, 2012, when Roat met with\nCruz to discuss the initial detail extension, she told Cruz that\nshe should plan on returning to the Information Technology\nSecurity Branch as Deputy after her replacement had fully\ntransitioned. In so doing, Cruz would not have been insulated\nfrom supervising the employees who complained about her. In\nshort, the record evidence does not indisputably fit with the\nDistrict Court’s theory that, all along, DHS wanted to “find[]\nher an altogether different position.” Cruz, 241 F. Supp. 3d at\n113.\n\n This evidence also undermines DHS’s legitimate\nexplanation for reassigning Cruz to a different division.\n\f 13\nIndeed, one might struggle to reconcile DHS’s explanation that\nit assigned Cruz to the Resource Management Branch because\nof her supervisory skills with its explanation that it removed\nher from the CISO position in order to lessen her interpersonal\nand managerial duties. Such inconsistency could be “probative\nof pretext,” Geleta, 645 F.3d at 413 (quoting EEOC v. Sears\nRoebuck & Co., 243 F.3d 846, 853 (4th Cir. 2001)), and is\nusually adequate to permit a jury to assess the retaliation claim,\nsee George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405, 413 (D.C. Cir. 2005); see\nalso Jones, 557 F.3d at 679.\n\n Because DHS had properly articulated its legitimate,\nnonretaliatory reason for the reassignment, we reject the\nDistrict Court’s grant of summary judgment on the ground that\nCruz’s prima facie case was lacking, and we reverse because\nthe evidence, taken together, was sufficient for a reasonable\njury to make an inference of retaliation.\n\n Cruz has not, however, created a genuine dispute of\nmaterial fact with respect to the initial decision to extend her\ndetail. DHS proffered evidence showing that it initially\nextended Cruz’s detail for four to six weeks because more time\nwas needed to onboard her replacement as permanent CISO.\nCruz has neither offered evidence to call that legitimate,\nnonretaliatory explanation into question, nor has she requested\nthe opportunity to take further discovery relevant to that aspect\nof the case. Accordingly, summary judgment on this aspect of\nher retaliation claim was warranted.\n\n IV.\n\n The District Court erred in granting summary judgment on\nCruz’s disparate treatment claim and her retaliation claim\nrelating to her reassignment to the Resource Management\nBranch, but it properly granted summary judgment on her\n\f 14\nretaliation claim relating to DHS’s initial decision to extend her\ndetail. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is\naffirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded\nfor further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\n\n So ordered.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Elisa R. CRUZ, Appellant v. Kevin K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Appellee\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-30\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued December 10, 2018 Decided July 30, 2019\\n\\n No. 17-5113\\n\\n ELISA R. CRUZ,\\n APPELLANT\\n\\n v.\\n\\n KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE U.S.\\n DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,\\n APPELLEE\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the District of Columbia\\n (No. 1:16-cv-00039)\\n\\n\\n Tamara L. Miller argued the cause and filed the briefs for\\nappellant.\\n\\n Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the\\ncause for appellee. With him on the brief were Jessie K. Liu,\\nU.S. Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S.\\nAttorney.\\n\\n Before: GRIFFITH and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and\\nWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKINS.\\n\\f 2\\n WILKINS, Circuit Judge: Elisa Cruz alleges that the\\nDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) engaged in\\ndiscrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the\\nCivil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII).\\nDHS filed a motion for summary judgment, which the District\\nCourt granted over Cruz’s objection and request to take\\ndiscovery. Cruz appeals the District Court’s order granting\\nsummary judgment to DHS and denying Cruz’s motion to stay\\nproceedings to allow for discovery under Federal Rule of Civil\\nProcedure 56(d). For the reasons set forth below, we reverse\\nthe order in large part and remand for further proceedings.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Because we are reviewing the District Court’s grant of\\nsummary judgment, we take the following facts from the\\nevidence and read them in the light most favorable to Cruz, the\\nnon-moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in her\\nfavor. See, e.g., Ortiz-Diaz v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev.,\\nOffice of Inspector Gen., 867 F.3d 70, 72 (D.C. Cir. 2017).\\n\\n Cruz, an African-American female of Hispanic national\\norigin, was employed from 2007 to 2012 within DHS as the\\nChief Information Security Officer (CISO) at the Federal\\nEmergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Office of the\\nChief Information Officer (OCIO). The head of OCIO and\\nCruz’s second-level supervisor was Jeanne Etzel, a white\\nwoman. The Deputy Chief Information Officer for\\nAdministration and Cruz’s direct supervisor was Maria Roat,\\nalso a white woman.\\n\\n In early January 2012, Don Buskard, one of Cruz’s\\ncolleagues and a white man, sent Etzel an email reporting that\\nCruz had behaved inappropriately during three meetings.\\nEtzel forwarded the email to Roat and asked her to investigate\\n\\f 3\\nBuskard’s allegations. Roat enlisted Human Resources to\\ndiscuss the allegation and “requested assistance in determining\\nif a reassignment would be warranted.” J.A. 216.\\nReassignment would serve the purpose of limiting Cruz’s\\nsupervisory duties without changing her salary grade. Human\\nResource Specialist Kirsten Gunsolus advised Roat on how to\\nproceed. In an email to Roat dated January 4, 2012, Gunsolus\\nwrote:\\n\\n [G]iven the fact that there are conduct issues regarding\\n Ms. Cruz, I would suggest that I conduct a fact finding\\n session and gather all the documentation surrounding\\n her conduct issues during the past year that you have\\n gathered, and then I would make a recommendation for\\n the reassignment to you from the [Labor and Employee\\n Relations] office. That way, if Ms. Cruz decides to\\n pursue any legal avenues, you’d have that\\n documentation and recommendation as backup for the\\n reassignment.\\n\\nJ.A. 104.\\n\\n Over the next few weeks, Gunsolus began a “limited\\nadministrative inquiry” into allegations of Cruz’s workplace\\nconduct. J.A. 216. In addition to interviewing several of\\nCruz’s colleagues, Gunsolus reviewed emails from Cruz to\\nvarious people, meeting notes, and the report of a previous\\ninvestigation concerning Cruz. Gunsolus’s report notes that\\n“none of [Cruz’s] employees, except one that [did not] have\\nmuch interaction with her” wanted to participate in the\\ninvestigation. J.A. 217. Additionally, Gunsolus did not meet\\nwith or interview Cruz in preparing her informal report.\\n\\n On January 26, 2012, Gunsolus completed her\\ninvestigation. Gunsolus concluded that “there is general\\n\\f 4\\nconsensus among the peers and employees that work with Ms.\\nCruz that she is often abrasive, rude, yells, and is\\ncondescending . . . .” J.A. 218. Gunsolus corroborated\\nBuskard’s allegations that Cruz had behaved unprofessionally\\nat recent meetings; she would “‘take over’ the meeting in a\\nnegative way” and not follow the meeting agenda. J.A. 217.\\nDuring one meeting conducted via conference call, Cruz did\\nnot announce “several of her subordinates” who were with her\\nin her office, “nor did any of them speak up at any time during\\nthe meeting.” Id. Indeed, Gunsolus found that the general\\nfeeling among her peers was that Cruz’s employees were too\\nafraid to speak up in her presence. Gunsolus ultimately\\ndetermined that Roat’s request to reassign Cruz to another\\nposition with fewer supervisory responsibilities was\\nreasonable. Moreover, Gunsolus approved of Roat sending\\nCruz a written warning that would serve to “put her on notice\\nthat she needs to improve her conduct in her interactions with\\npeople.” J.A. 218.\\n\\n On March 14, 2012, Cruz received a written warning from\\nRoat. The warning explained that one of Cruz’s colleagues had\\nreported her for inappropriate conduct at meetings and that\\nthere had been an informal inquiry into these allegations. Cruz\\nwas notified that she was to be detailed for ninety days from\\nFEMA OCIO to a position with DHS Headquarters OCIO. In\\nresponse to the written warning and reassignment, Cruz sought\\ncounseling from FEMA’s Equal Employment Opportunity\\n(EEO) office. In a March 29, 2012 email, Roat disseminated a\\nnew OCIO organizational chart showing Cruz as Deputy CISO,\\nrather than CISO, her previous title. This reassignment, which\\ndid not affect her paygrade, became effective on April 8, 2012.\\n\\n On June 6, 2012, Cruz filed a formal complaint with\\nFEMA, alleging that she had been subject to discrimination\\nbased on her race, color, national origin, and sex. One week\\n\\f 5\\nlater, on June 13, 2012, Roat asked DHS to extend Cruz’s detail\\nfor four to six weeks so that the person taking over her former\\nposition could be onboarded before she returned. On June 20,\\n2012, Cruz’s detail to DHS Headquarters was extended.\\n\\n On October 1, 2012, Roat informed Cruz that, upon\\nreturning from her detail, she would be placed in a new position\\nrather than assuming her already reassigned role of FEMA\\nDeputy CISO. She was to become the Chief of the Resource\\nManagement Branch within the OCIO. Cruz objected to the\\nreassignment because she did not feel qualified to perform the\\nnecessary duties. However, in or around December 2012,\\nFEMA’s Human Resources office conducted an inquiry and\\ndetermined that Cruz was sufficiently qualified for the new\\nrole. Based on the June 2012 extension of her detail and\\nOctober 2012 second reassignment, on February 6, 2013, Cruz\\namended her administrative complaint to include allegations of\\nretaliation. Over two years later, on September 25, 2015, an\\nadministrative law judge for the Equal Employment\\nOpportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a decision in favor of\\nFEMA. On October 14, 2015, EEOC issued its final order,\\nwhich concluded that no discrimination or retaliation had\\noccurred.\\n\\n On January 8, 2016, Cruz filed her federal complaint\\nagainst the Secretary of DHS, bringing claims of unlawful\\ndiscrimination and retaliation under Title VII. On April 28,\\n2016, DHS answered and then moved for summary judgment\\nthree weeks later. Cruz opposed the motion in substance and\\nargued that it was premature given the lack of discovery. Her\\ncounsel also submitted an affidavit under Rule 56(d) to support\\nher argument. On March 15, 2017, the District Court granted\\nsummary judgment to DHS. The court found that DHS’s\\nexplanation for its decision to detail and reassign Cruz was not\\npretextual.\\n\\f 6\\n Cruz now appeals. Our review of the District Court’s grant\\nof summary judgment is de novo. Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156\\nF.3d 1284, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc). Summary\\njudgment is warranted where there is “no genuine dispute as to\\nany material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a\\nmatter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute about a\\nmaterial fact “is ‘genuine’ . . . if the evidence is such that a\\nreasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving\\nparty.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248\\n(1986). We review the District Court’s decision to deny\\ndiscovery under Rule 56(d) for abuse of discretion. Pollack v.\\nDuff, 793 F.3d 34, 48 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).\\n\\n II.\\n\\n We first consider whether the District Court erred in\\ngranting summary judgment without permitting Cruz to take\\nadditional discovery. Because the District Court erroneously\\nconcluded that the evidence sought by Cruz could not create a\\ndispute of material fact as to whether DHS’s proffered reasons\\nfor taking adverse action were pretextual, we vacate the\\ndecision of the District Court.\\n\\n Title VII makes it unlawful for a federal employer to take\\n“personnel actions affecting employees” and motivated by\\n“any discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national\\norigin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(a). Under the burden-shifting\\nframework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.\\n792 (1973), a Title VII plaintiff seeking to prove disparate\\ntreatment through indirect, circumstantial evidence “must first\\nestablish a prima facie case of prohibited discrimination.” Aka,\\n156 F.3d at 1288. Once she has done so, the burden then shifts\\nto the employer to “articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory\\nreasons for the challenged employment decision.” Id. If the\\nemployer has properly offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory\\n\\f 7\\nreasons for its action, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to\\nprove that the reasons are a pretext for discrimination. See\\nFigueroa v. Pompeo, 923 F.3d 1078, 1087-88 (D.C. Cir. 2019);\\nBrady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490, 494 (D.C.\\nCir. 2008).\\n\\n Cruz alleges that DHS violated Title VII in removing her\\nfrom her position as FEMA CISO and placing her on detail to\\nDHS’s Headquarters, and in “reassigning and demoting” her to\\nthe position of Deputy CISO, because they did so on the basis\\nof her sex, race, national origin, and color. J.A. 15. According\\nto Cruz, she was subjected to disparate treatment as compared\\nto similarly situated white and non-African-American male\\nemployees.\\n\\n DHS moved for summary judgment after Cruz filed the\\ncomplaint, but before any discovery had taken place, stating\\nthat it had detailed and reassigned Cruz because of complaints\\nregarding her “unprofessional and inappropriate conduct while\\nserving as the CISO.” J.A. 39. Cruz concedes that DHS\\npresented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, and argues\\ninstead that it is pretextual. In addition to opposing the motion\\non the merits, Cruz’s counsel filed an affidavit pursuant to Rule\\n56(d) requesting that summary judgment proceedings be stayed\\npending discovery. Under Rule 56(d), “[i]f a nonmovant\\nshows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it\\ncannot present facts essential to justify its opposition,” the\\ncourt has discretion to, among other options, “allow time to\\nobtain affidavits . . . or to take discovery.” Cruz contends that\\nthe District Court abused its discretion when it denied her the\\nopportunity to take discovery. Her affidavit, in relevant part,\\nrequested discovery on:\\n\\n The conduct of . . . Ms. Maria Roat toward the Plaintiff, as\\n well as toward Black employees, female employees, and\\n\\f 8\\n employees who had engaged in protected activity, versus\\n her conduct toward employees who did not share\\n Plaintiff’s protected characteristics . . .\\n\\n The conduct of . . . Ms. Jeanne Etzel toward the Plaintiff,\\n as well as toward Black employees, female employees,\\n and employees who had engaged in protected activity,\\n versus her conduct toward employees who did not share\\n Plaintiff’s protected characteristics.\\n\\nJ.A. 295.\\n\\n In denying Cruz’s Rule 56(d) request, the District Court\\nstated it was “extremely unlikely” that evidence that other\\nemployees in DHS were treated more leniently could raise a\\nmaterial dispute over whether FEMA’s justifications were\\npretextual. Cruz v. Kelly, 241 F. Supp. 3d 107, 112 (D.D.C.\\n2017). Not so. “[C]omparative information concerning an\\nemployer’s treatment of [protected groups] is relevant evidence\\nin an individual discrimination claim against that employer.\\nSuch evidence can be used . . . to show that the employer’s\\nstated reasons for the challenged actions are a pretext for\\ndiscrimination.” Minority Employees at NASA (MEAN) v.\\nBeggs, 723 F.2d 958, 962 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (per curiam).\\nAccordingly, evidence that white employees, or male\\nemployees, were disciplined less severely for the sort of\\nbehavior for which Cruz was disciplined could create a dispute\\nof material fact about whether FEMA’s justification was a\\npretext for discrimination.\\n\\n The District Court also found that evidence of other\\nsimilarly situated employees being treated more favorably\\nwould be irrelevant because of the “strong evidence” that the\\nDHS’s actions were independent of Cruz’s protected\\ncharacteristics. Cruz, 241 F. Supp. 3d at 112. Specifically, the\\n\\f 9\\ncourt was referencing the investigation that Gunsolus\\nconducted at the request of Roat and Etzel. Even if the\\nGunsolus report were truly independent,1 the evidence Cruz\\nsought nonetheless would be material to the question of pretext.\\nThis Court has never held that the existence of an independent\\ninvestigation is dispositive on the question of pretext. For\\nexample, in Brady, where an employer offered, among other\\nevidence, that a misconduct incident had been “thoroughly and\\nindependently investigated,” we noted that the plaintiff could\\nattempt to discredit this nondiscriminatory reason with\\nevidence that the employer treated other employees lacking\\nprotected characteristics more favorably in the same factual\\ncircumstances. See 520 F.3d at 495; see also Wheeler v.\\nGeorgetown Univ. Hosp., 812 F.3d 1109, 1115 (D.C. Cir.\\n2016) (“Showing that others outside the plaintiff’s class have\\nbeen more favorably treated is ‘[e]specially relevant’ to a\\ndemonstration of pretext.” (quoting McDonnell Douglas, 411\\nU.S. at 804)); Morris v. McCarthy, 825 F.3d 658, 672 (D.C.\\nCir. 2016) (“The ‘mere conduct of an independent\\ninvestigation’ does not break the causal chain between a\\nsupervisor’s bias and an adverse employment action.” (quoting\\nStaub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411, 421 (2001))).\\n\\n We find that the evidence sought by Cruz could create a\\ngenuine dispute of material fact as to whether DHS’s proffered\\nreasons for taking adverse action were pretextual. The District\\nCourt’s conclusion to the contrary rested on legal errors and\\n\\n1\\n Although we vacate the District Court’s denial of Cruz’s Rule 56(d)\\nrequest, the record as read in her favor could support an inference\\nthat Gunsolus’s investigation was merely a post hoc effort to shore\\nup Roat and Etzel’s decision to discipline Cruz. After meeting with\\nRoat, Gunsolus agreed that she “would make a recommendation for\\nthe reassignment,” thus providing Roat “documentation and\\nrecommendation as backup for the reassignment” in the event that\\nCruz took legal action, J.A. 104, as she has done here.\\n\\f 10\\nwas thus an abuse of discretion. See Koon v. United States, 518\\nU.S. 81, 100 (1996) (“A district court by definition abuses its\\ndiscretion when it makes an error of law.”). Accordingly, with\\nrespect to Cruz’s disparate treatment claim, we vacate the\\njudgment of the District Court and remand the case for further\\nproceedings. On remand, the District Court is free to consider,\\nconsistent with this opinion, whether Cruz’s Rule 56(d)\\naffidavit otherwise met all the standards set by Convertino v.\\nUnited States Department of Justice, 684 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir.\\n2012), including whether the affidavit offered a “reasonable\\nbasis” to suggest that discovery would produce the evidence\\nrequired, Carpenter v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 174 F.3d 231,\\n237 (D.C. Cir. 1999).\\n\\n III.\\n\\n We next consider whether the District Court erred in\\ngranting summary judgment in DHS’s favor with respect to\\nCruz’s retaliation claims. We find that summary judgment was\\ninappropriate with respect to Cruz’s claim that her\\nreassignment to the Resource Management Branch was\\nretaliatory. With respect to DHS’s initial decision to extend\\nher detail, we find that summary judgment was appropriate\\nbecause Cruz did not create a genuine dispute of material fact.\\n\\n Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision prohibits employer\\nactions that discriminate against an employee because the\\nemployee has “made a charge, testified, assisted, or\\nparticipated in any manner” in a Title VII “investigation,\\nproceeding, or hearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a); see also\\nFigueroa, 923 F.3d at 1083 (noting that Title VII’s substantive\\nprotections apply to federal-sector cases). We analyze Title\\nVII retaliation claims using the McDonnell Douglas\\nframework discussed above. See Geleta v. Gray, 645 F.3d 408,\\n410 (D.C. Cir. 2011). To establish a prima facie case of\\n\\f 11\\nretaliation, a plaintiff must show “(1) that he engaged in\\nstatutorily protected activity; (2) that he suffered a materially\\nadverse action by his employer; and (3) that a causal link\\nconnects the two.” Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670, 677 (D.C.\\nCir. 2009). If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the\\nburden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate and\\nnonretaliatory reason for taking the adverse employment\\naction. See id; see also Figueroa, 923 F.3d at 1087-88. If the\\nemployer successfully meets this burden, “whether the plaintiff\\nhas made out a prima facie case is no longer relevant.” Geleta,\\n645 F.3d at 411. At this point, “the district court need not –\\nand should not – decide whether the plaintiff actually made out\\na prima facie case,” Brady, 520 F.3d at 494, but rather “should\\n[] proceed[] to the ultimate issue of retaliation vel non,” Jones,\\n557 F.3d at 678. In determining whether a reasonable jury\\ncould infer retaliation, the court reviews “all the evidence,\\nwhich includes not only the prima facie case but also the\\nevidence the plaintiff offers to attack the employer’s proffered\\nexplanation for its action and other evidence of retaliation.”\\nGaujacq v. EDF, Inc., 601 F.3d 565, 577 (D.C. Cir. 2010)\\n(quoting Jones, 557 F.3d at 677).\\n\\n DHS sufficiently presented a legitimate, nonretaliatory\\nexplanation for reassigning Cruz to the Resource Management\\nBranch: there was a need for a GS-15 employee with\\nmanagerial experience and she fit that role. Thus, the District\\nCourt should not have assessed Cruz’s prima facie case but\\nrather should have proceeded to determine whether Cruz’s\\nevidence creates a genuine factual dispute on the issue of\\nretaliation. We review the evidence ourselves, cf. Jones, 557\\nF.3d at 679, and conclude that it does.\\n\\n While the District Court concluded that all of the allegedly\\nretaliatory acts were foreordained by the initial disciplinary\\ndecision, the record could reasonably support a conclusion that\\n\\f 12\\nthe decision to reassign Cruz outside the information security\\nfield was distinct from that initial action. DHS had\\ncontemplated Cruz would take a ninety-day detail followed by\\nher return as Deputy CISO, a position within the Information\\nTechnology Security Branch, and with reduced supervisory\\nresponsibilities. As DHS reasoned, reassigning Cruz to Deputy\\nCISO would allow her to “focus more on [her] job and [] allow\\nfor less interactions with people.” J.A. 192. This proposed\\naction was reflected in the reorganization chart issued to\\nrelevant staff shortly after Cruz had received the written\\nwarning. Things changed, however, after Cruz engaged in\\nprotected activity – namely, filing a formal complaint of\\ndiscrimination with FEMA’s EEO office. After this point,\\nDHS not only extended her detail for several additional months\\nbut also reassigned her to the Resource Management Branch,\\nwhich does not involve information security. Moreover, this\\nnew position carried roughly the same supervisory duties as the\\nposition from which Cruz was originally detailed away.\\nAlthough the District Court suggests that DHS was always\\nlooking for a position for Cruz that “would not require her to\\nsupervise the employees who had complained about her\\nbehavior,” Cruz, 241 F. Supp. 3d at 113, the record lacks any\\nsuch evidence. In fact, on June 19, 2012, when Roat met with\\nCruz to discuss the initial detail extension, she told Cruz that\\nshe should plan on returning to the Information Technology\\nSecurity Branch as Deputy after her replacement had fully\\ntransitioned. In so doing, Cruz would not have been insulated\\nfrom supervising the employees who complained about her. In\\nshort, the record evidence does not indisputably fit with the\\nDistrict Court’s theory that, all along, DHS wanted to “find[]\\nher an altogether different position.” Cruz, 241 F. Supp. 3d at\\n113.\\n\\n This evidence also undermines DHS’s legitimate\\nexplanation for reassigning Cruz to a different division.\\n\\f 13\\nIndeed, one might struggle to reconcile DHS’s explanation that\\nit assigned Cruz to the Resource Management Branch because\\nof her supervisory skills with its explanation that it removed\\nher from the CISO position in order to lessen her interpersonal\\nand managerial duties. Such inconsistency could be “probative\\nof pretext,” Geleta, 645 F.3d at 413 (quoting EEOC v. Sears\\nRoebuck & Co., 243 F.3d 846, 853 (4th Cir. 2001)), and is\\nusually adequate to permit a jury to assess the retaliation claim,\\nsee George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405, 413 (D.C. Cir. 2005); see\\nalso Jones, 557 F.3d at 679.\\n\\n Because DHS had properly articulated its legitimate,\\nnonretaliatory reason for the reassignment, we reject the\\nDistrict Court’s grant of summary judgment on the ground that\\nCruz’s prima facie case was lacking, and we reverse because\\nthe evidence, taken together, was sufficient for a reasonable\\njury to make an inference of retaliation.\\n\\n Cruz has not, however, created a genuine dispute of\\nmaterial fact with respect to the initial decision to extend her\\ndetail. DHS proffered evidence showing that it initially\\nextended Cruz’s detail for four to six weeks because more time\\nwas needed to onboard her replacement as permanent CISO.\\nCruz has neither offered evidence to call that legitimate,\\nnonretaliatory explanation into question, nor has she requested\\nthe opportunity to take further discovery relevant to that aspect\\nof the case. Accordingly, summary judgment on this aspect of\\nher retaliation claim was warranted.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n The District Court erred in granting summary judgment on\\nCruz’s disparate treatment claim and her retaliation claim\\nrelating to her reassignment to the Resource Management\\nBranch, but it properly granted summary judgment on her\\n\\f 14\\nretaliation claim relating to DHS’s initial decision to extend her\\ndetail. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is\\naffirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded\\nfor further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\n So ordered.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3477,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4643876,"string":"4,643,876"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"AMERICAN CLINICAL LABORATORY ASSOCIATION, Appellant v. Alex Michael AZAR, II, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"American Clinical Laboratory v. Alex Azar, II"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-30"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-5312"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Griffith, Millett, Pillard\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge PILLARD\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued April 23, 2019 Decided July 30, 2019\\n\\n No. 18-5312\\n\\n AMERICAN CLINICAL LABORATORY ASSOCIATION,\\n APPELLANT\\n\\n v.\\n\\n ALEX MICHAEL AZAR, II, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS\\n SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,\\n APPELLEE\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the District of Columbia\\n (No. 1:17-cv-02645)\\n\\n\\n Ashley C. Parrish argued the cause for appellant. With\\nhim on the briefs were Mark D. Polston, Elizabeth N. Swayne,\\nand Amelia G. Yowell.\\n\\n R. Scott Caulkins and Jeffrey J. Sherrin were on the brief\\nfor amicus curiae American Association of Bioanalysts in\\nsupport of plaintiffs-appellant.\\n\\n David McAloon was on the brief for amici curiae The\\nCollege of American Pathologists, et al. in support of appellant.\\n\\n Dennis Fan, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued\\nthe cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Abby C.\\n\\f 2\\nWright, Attorney, Robert P. Charrow, General Counsel, U.S.\\nDepartment of Health & Human Services, Janice L. Hoffman,\\nAssociate General Counsel, Susan Maxson Lyons, Deputy\\nAssociate General Counsel, and Debra M. Laboschin,\\nAttorney. Alisa B. Klein, Attorney U.S. Department of Justice,\\nentered an appearance.\\n\\n Before: GRIFFITH, MILLETT and PILLARD, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge PILLARD.\\n\\n PILLARD, Circuit Judge: The Protecting Access to\\nMedicare Act (PAMA, or the Act) seeks to align Medicare\\nreimbursement rates for laboratory tests with rates paid for\\nsuch tests in the private market. To enable the Secretary of\\nHealth and Human Services (HHS) to ascertain the private\\nmarket’s reimbursement rates, PAMA requires “applicable\\nlaboratories” to report private payor data to the Secretary that\\nthe Medicare program then uses to set new, presumably lower,\\nMedicare reimbursement rates. The Secretary must implement\\nthe statute’s definition of “applicable laboratory” before it can\\nbe used to collect the requisite data. In 2016, the Secretary\\nissued a final rule doing so, and plaintiff American Clinical\\nLaboratory Association (ACLA) filed suit claiming the rule\\nunlawfully excluded most hospital laboratories from the Act’s\\nreporting requirements.\\n\\n Based on PAMA’s prohibition of judicial review of “the\\nestablishment of payment amounts,” the district court\\ndismissed ACLA’s complaint for lack of subject matter\\njurisdiction. We conclude that the statutory provision stripping\\njurisdiction to review payment amounts does not cover the\\nstatute’s data-collection provision. We also reject ACLA’s\\nclaim that the Secretary’s rule was ultra vires. We thus reverse\\n\\f 3\\nand remand to the district court to consider in the first instance\\nwhether the rule comports with the APA.\\n\\n I. Background\\n\\n The federal Medicare program, which pays for healthcare\\nfor elderly and disabled individuals, see 42 U.S.C. § 1395 et\\nseq., is the nation’s largest purchaser of clinical laboratory\\nservices. In 2013, the HHS Office of Inspector General\\nconcluded that Medicare was paying 18 to 30 percent more\\nthan private insurance companies for a range of common\\nlaboratory tests. Congress responded by enacting the\\nProtecting Access to Medicare Act, Pub. L. No. 113-93, 128\\nStat. 1040 (2014). A central goal of the Act is to set Medicare\\nreimbursement rates for laboratory tests at approximately the\\nprice private insurers pay for the same tests. See 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 1395m-1(b)(1)(A).\\n\\n To inform the Secretary’s rate setting, the statute requires\\n“applicable laborator[ies]” within the private sector to report\\n“private payor” data—both the price and volume of laboratory\\ntests—to HHS every three years. Id. § 1395m-1(a). The statute\\ndefines the term “private payor” as a “health insurance issuer\\nand a group health plan,” a “Medicare Advantage plan,” or a\\n“medicaid managed care organization.” Id. § 1395m-1(a)(8).\\nIt calls on the Secretary to establish parameters for data\\ncollection through notice and comment rulemaking. Id.\\n§ 1395m-1(a)(12). Applicable laboratories that fail to report\\naccurate data face monetary penalties of up to $10,000 per day.\\nId. § 1395m-1(a)(9).\\n\\n In separate provisions, the statute explains how the\\nSecretary is to use private payor data on each laboratory test\\nalready available in the market to calculate a “weighted\\nmedian” rate, which becomes Medicare’s reimbursement rate\\nfor that test. Id. § 1395m-1(b). For new tests that do not have\\n\\f 4\\nprivate payor data, the Secretary is to use a “gapfilling process”\\nand consult with an expert advisory panel to establish the new\\ntest’s Medicare payment rate. Id. §§ 1395m-1(c)-(d), (f).\\nBecause the market-approximating Medicare rates are likely to\\nbe lower than existing Medicare rates, the statute allows for a\\nmulti-year “[p]hase-in” process to transition to the market-\\nbased rates. Id. § 1395m-1(b)(3). Finally, the statute declares\\nthat “[t]here shall be no administrative or judicial review . . . of\\nthe establishment of payment amounts under this section,” id.\\n§ 1395m-1(h)(1), thereby barring otherwise available review\\nby the Departmental Appeals Board and Provider\\nReimbursement Board as well as the federal courts.\\n\\n This appeal is about whether the Secretary’s\\nimplementation of PAMA’s definition of “applicable\\nlaboratories” is subject to review in response to a claim that it\\nunlawfully excludes hospital laboratories—which tend to\\ncharge higher prices than standalone laboratories—from the\\ndataset used to determine new Medicare rates. See Medicare\\nProgram; Medicare Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests\\nPayment System, 81 Fed. Reg. 41,036 (June 23, 2016).\\nLaboratory tests are available to the public through three main\\ntypes of laboratories: physician-office laboratories (which in\\n2015 comprised 17 percent of all labs), independent\\nlaboratories (50 percent of all labs), and hospital laboratories\\n(33 percent of all labs). The statute does not expressly discuss\\nthose distinct types of institutional settings, instead generally\\ndefining an applicable laboratory as “a laboratory that, with\\nrespect to its revenues under this subchapter, a majority of such\\nrevenues are from this section, section 1395l(h) of this title, or\\nsection 1395w-4 of this title.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a)(2). In\\nplain terms, that definition refers to a laboratory that receives\\nmost of its overall Medicare funding from the Physician Fee\\nSchedule (PFS) or the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule\\n(CLFS). Those Medicare fee schedules are typically used to\\n\\f 5\\npay for laboratory services provided by independent\\nlaboratories and physician-office laboratories. We refer to this\\npart of the statute’s definition of applicable labs as the\\nmajority-payments test. 1\\n\\n Applying the majority-payments test to hospital\\nlaboratories has proved more complicated than for independent\\nlaboratories and physician-office laboratories. Medicare\\nreimburses laboratory services provided by hospital\\nlaboratories in a range of different ways, and it is not obvious\\nwhich, if any, are relevant to PAMA. When hospital\\nlaboratories serve admitted inpatients and registered\\noutpatients, Medicare does not use the PFS or CLFS, but pays\\nfor those services through distinct fee schedules that bundle the\\nlaboratory testing with other hospital services. See Medicare\\nProgram; Medicare Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests\\nPayment System, 80 Fed. Reg. 59,386, 59,393 (Oct. 1, 2015).\\nA hospital laboratory serving only inpatients and outpatients\\naccordingly is not an applicable laboratory under PAMA\\nbecause it receives no Medicare reimbursements from the\\napplicable fee schedules.\\n\\n However, some hospitals also provide “outreach\\nservices”—that is, laboratory services for people who are\\nneither inpatients nor outpatients. Hospitals’ outreach services\\nmay compete for such business with independent laboratories,\\nand Medicare reimburses hospitals for those services under the\\n\\n1\\n The statute authorizes the Secretary to establish a “low volume or\\nlow expenditure threshold” to exclude especially small laboratories.\\n42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a)(2). The Secretary has set the low\\nexpenditure threshold at $12,500, meaning that labs receiving less\\nthan $12,500 of Medicare revenue from the CLFS and PFS are\\nexempt from reporting requirements. ACLA does not challenge that\\nprovision, which exempts approximately 95 percent of physician-\\noffice laboratories.\\n\\f 6\\nPFS and CLFS. Considered as a freestanding entity, a hospital\\nlaboratory that offered outreach services could fit the statutory\\ndefinition of an applicable laboratory if it received most of its\\nMedicare revenue from the PFS and CLFS.\\n\\n In October 2015, the Secretary proposed a rule to\\nimplement the data reporting provision of PAMA. See 80 Fed.\\nReg. at 59,386. The Secretary acknowledged that it was\\n“important” to “define laboratory broadly enough to\\nencompass every laboratory type that is subject to” the\\napplicable fee schedules, id. at 59,391, so proposed to include\\nany “entity that includes a laboratory” as well as any “entity\\nthat itself is a laboratory,” id. at 59,392. But to make the\\nthreshold identification of the relevant entity to be scrutinized\\nunder the statutory majority-payments test, the proposed rule\\ndefined “entity” as the institutional unit associated with a\\ndistinct taxpayer identification number (TIN). Id. at 59,387. A\\nTIN is the institutional identifier Medicare service providers\\nuse to report to the IRS tax-related information about all types\\nof Medicare payments. Id. at 59,421.\\n\\n The practical effect of applying the majority-payments test\\nto an entity defined by its TIN would be that essentially no\\nhospital laboratory could qualify as an applicable laboratory.\\nSee id. at 59,393. An independent laboratory that takes\\nMedicare payments has a TIN, but so does an entire hospital\\nthat takes Medicare payments. Identifying the relevant entity\\nat the level of the TIN would mean that, for purposes of the\\nmajority-payments test, Medicare reimbursements to a hospital\\nlab under the PFS and CLFS would be compared to the entire\\nhospital’s Medicare revenue rather than to its laboratory’s\\nMedicare revenue. Hospitals, in contrast to stand-alone\\nlaboratories, receive Medicare reimbursements for a wide\\nrange of services—everything from surgeries to room and\\nboard—so even if the hospital laboratory received the majority\\n\\f 7\\nof its Medicare revenue from the PFS and CLFS, the majority\\nof the hospital’s overall Medicare revenues would not come\\nfrom those fee schedules.\\n\\n Insofar as hospitals’ Medicare revenue associated with\\nthose fee schedules is dwarfed by their other types of Medicare\\nrevenue, reliance on the TIN to define the relevant entity would\\nexclude all hospital-based laboratories from the “applicable\\nlaboratories” reporting requirement at the threshold, without\\nsubjecting the laboratories as such to the majority-payments\\ntest. The Secretary anticipated that consequence, explaining:\\n“[W]e believe the statute intends to limit reporting primarily to\\nindependent laboratories and physician offices . . . and not to\\ninclude other entities (such as hospitals, or other health care\\nproviders) that do not receive the majority of their revenues\\nfrom PFS or CLFS services.” Id. at 59,393.\\n\\n Many healthcare entities and other stakeholders opposed\\nthat part of the proposed rule, arguing that reading the statute’s\\ndefinition of applicable laboratory to generally exclude\\nhospital laboratories violated PAMA. See, e.g., 81 Fed. Reg.\\nat 41,045. Why did that matter? A major laboratory services\\nprovider asserted that hospital laboratories receive 1.5 to 4\\ntimes higher private payor reimbursement rates than\\nindependent laboratories for the same test. (The record does\\nnot specify whether that estimate isolated reimbursement\\npursuant to the PFS or CLFS schedules, or included laboratory\\ntests provided—presumably at greater cost—as part of\\ninpatient and outpatient services). The American Hospital\\nAssociation advocated in favor of requiring hospital\\nlaboratories to report their rate data, believing that would\\n“generally increase the weighted median,” and make the new\\nMedicare rates “more representative of overall market rates.”\\nJoint Appendix (J.A.) 595 (letter to Acting Administrator of\\nCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Services).\\n\\f 8\\n Commenters advocated identifying entities by their\\nNational Provider Identifier (NPI) numbers rather than their\\nTIN. Healthcare providers use NPI numbers to bill Medicare.\\nBecause more hospital laboratories have NPI numbers distinct\\nfrom those of their associated hospitals, they reasoned,\\nidentifying the relevant entity at the NPI level would mean\\nhospital laboratories with their own NPI numbers would be\\nevaluated for whether they, considered separately, meet the\\nmajority-payments test defining “applicable laboratories.”\\n\\n In the final rule issued in June 2016, the Secretary accepted\\nthat suggestion and defined applicable laboratories at the NPI\\nlevel rather than the TIN level. 2 81 Fed. Reg. at 41,037. The\\nfinal rule reiterated the Secretary’s reading of the statute as\\nexcluding the majority of hospital laboratories because those\\nlaboratories receive most of their Medicare revenue from\\nbundled payments for inpatients and outpatients rather than\\nfrom the CLFS or PFS. Id. at 41,045. However, the Secretary\\n“agree[d] with commenters” that hospital outreach\\nlaboratories—i.e., “laboratories that furnish laboratory tests for\\npatients that are not admitted hospital inpatients or registered\\noutpatients of the hospital” and that “are enrolled in Medicare\\nseparately from the hospital of which they are a part”—“should\\nbe accounted for” in the new payment rates. Id.\\n\\n As it turns out, however, NPIs suffer from virtually the\\nsame flaw as TINs because “[v]ery few hospitals have\\nlaboratory-specific NPIs, and they generally submit claims\\nunder the hospital’s NPI.” J.A. 271 (letter from ACLA to\\nDepartment of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector\\n\\n2\\n The rule rejected commenters’ alternative suggestion that entities\\nbe identified by their Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments\\n(CLIA) certificate, which is used to certify that a laboratory meets\\nhealth and safety regulations, because that certificate is not\\nassociated with Medicare billing. 81 Fed. Reg. at 41,045-46.\\n\\f 9\\nGeneral). In 2016, approximately 2,000 out of 260,000 total\\nlaboratories nationwide (0.7 percent) reported data to the\\nSecretary. Out of the approximately 7,000 hospital laboratories\\nin the United States, only 21 (0.3 percent) reported data,\\ncomprising about one percent of all the reporting labs. Much\\nof the data collected by the Secretary came from the country’s\\ntwo largest independent laboratories—Quest and Labcorp—\\nwhich have lower cost structures than other laboratories. See\\nJ.A. 70-71 (Declaration from Senior Vice President of Quest\\nDiagnostics). According to ACLA, that skewed the Medicare\\nreimbursement rates low. The government, for its part,\\nmaintains that the data used to calculate the 2018 rates “was\\nsufficient and resulted in accurate weighted medians of private\\npayor rates.” See Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment\\nPolicies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other\\nRevisions, 83 Fed. Reg. 59,452, 59,672 (Nov. 23, 2018).\\n\\n In 2018, the Secretary finalized another rule—not at issue\\nhere—that amended the implementation of “applicable\\nlaboratories” in an effort to include more hospital-based\\noutreach laboratory services in the next set of data. Id. at\\n59,452. As HHS explained, “we are confident that our current\\npolicy supports our collecting sufficient applicable information\\n. . . and that we received sufficient and reliable applicable\\ninformation with which we set [2018 rates],” but “we continue\\nto consider refinements to our policies that could lead to\\nincluding even more applicable information for the next data\\nreporting period.” Id. at 59,672. The 2018 rule requires\\nlaboratories providing outreach services to report data using the\\nCMS–1450 14x TOB—a billing form used only by hospital\\noutreach laboratories. Id. at 59,673-75. The new rule, in effect,\\ncategorizes as an applicable laboratory that portion of a\\nhospital laboratory that provides outreach services—even if\\nthose services comprise only a minority of the laboratory’s\\noverall services. See id. at 59,673 (“[W]e believe that if we\\n\\f 10\\nwere to utilize such an approach in defining applicable\\nlaboratory, all hospital outreach laboratories would meet the\\nmajority of Medicare revenues threshold . . .”). Notably, this\\napproach was not encompassed by the relief that ACLA seeks\\nhere. ACLA is emphatic that the statute requires the Secretary\\nto use the hospital laboratory as the denominator in the\\nmajority-payments test. See Appellant’s Br. 65. The Secretary\\nwill use the new data about hospital laboratories’ outreach\\nservices in a revised fee schedule as of January 1, 2021. 80\\nFed. Reg. at 59,667.\\n\\n Plaintiff in this case, American Clinical Laboratory\\nAssociation, is a trade association of laboratories. It submitted\\ncomments to the Secretary both before the 2015 proposed rule\\nand before the 2016 final rule. See J.A. 82. ACLA brought\\nsuit in 2017 to challenge the 2016 rule’s implementation of\\napplicable laboratory as contrary to the statute and arbitrary\\nand capricious in violation of the APA. The district court\\ndismissed for want of jurisdiction. Am. Clinical Lab. Ass’n v.\\nAzar, 334 F. Supp. 3d 301, 309 (D.D.C. 2018). This Court\\nreviews de novo a district court’s legal determination as to\\nsubject matter jurisdiction. See Piersall v. Winter, 435 F.3d\\n319, 321 (D.C. Cir. 2006).\\n\\n II. Standing\\n\\n Although the Secretary scarcely challenges standing on\\nappeal, we have an independent obligation to assure ourselves\\nthat ACLA has standing to challenge the final rule. Steel Co.\\nv. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). The\\n“constitutional minimum” of standing requires that a plaintiff\\nhave suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly\\ntraceable to the challenged conduct and is likely to be redressed\\nby a favorable decision. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504\\nU.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). In order to have associational\\n\\f 11\\nstanding, ACLA must demonstrate that “at least one of [its]\\nmembers satisfies” this test. See Am. Library Ass’n v. FCC,\\n401 F.3d 489, 492 (D.C. Cir. 2005). At the motion to dismiss\\nstage, “general factual allegations of injury resulting from the\\ndefendant’s conduct may suffice” to establish standing. Lujan,\\n504 U.S. at 561. We hold that ACLA meets those familiar\\nrequirements.\\n\\n First, ACLA has established injury in fact. By adopting an\\nimpermissible definition of “applicable laboratories” that\\nexcludes virtually all hospital laboratories, ACLA asserts that\\nthe rule harms its members in various ways. First, it\\ndisproportionately burdens independent laboratories with the\\ncost of data-production obligations not borne by its hospital-\\nbased competitor laboratories. ACLA submitted a declaration\\nfrom the Senior Vice President of Quest Diagnostics, an ACLA\\nmember, asserting that “laboratories that reported private payor\\ninformation were significantly disadvantaged as compared to\\nother laboratories that, while required to report under PAMA,\\nwere excused from that obligation by the Secretary.” J.A. 73.\\nSecond, it artificially depresses the reimbursement rates by\\nexcluding data from a portion of the market that receives\\nhigher-than-average Medicare reimbursements for its\\nlaboratory services. An affidavit from the Chief Executive\\nOfficer of Joint Venture Hospital Laboratories, LLC, an ACLA\\nmember, attests that the “elimination of . . . hospital[]\\nlaboratories from the reporting requirements skews the data”\\nthat is used to calculate the weighted median of commercial\\npayor rates and ultimately set the Medicare reimbursement\\nrate. J.A. 61. And, because “hospital laboratories typically\\nreceive higher commercial rates than other types of\\nlaboratories,” the Medicare reimbursement rates are lower than\\nthey would be if the Secretary collected more data from\\nhospital laboratories. Id.; see also U.S. Gov’t Accountability\\nOffice, GAO 19-67, Medicare Laboratory Tests;\\n\\f 12\\nImplementation of New Rates May Lead to Billions in Excess\\nPayment 12 (2018), https://www.gao.gov/assets/\\n700/695756.pdf (hospital laboratories “typically receive\\nrelatively higher private-payer rates . . . by leveraging the\\nmarket power of their affiliated hospital when negotiating rates\\nwith private payers.”). ACLA has adequately shown that at\\nleast one of its members is reimbursed by Medicare at a rate\\nlower than it would be if we were to rule in ACLA’s favor and\\ninvalidate the challenged limitation in the definition of\\n“applicable laboratory.” That establishes injury in fact.\\n\\n As for causation and redressability, ACLA has met its\\nburden at this stage. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. According to\\nthe Joint Venture Hospital Laboratories affidavit, excluding\\ndata from hospital laboratories “significantly depress[es]” the\\nweighted median payment rates that are used to generate the\\nnew Medicare fee schedule. J.A. 62. Another declaration, by\\nthe President of Aculabs, Inc. (also a member of ACLA),\\nattests: “If the Secretary’s failure to implement Congress’s\\ndirectives is not corrected, the impact on Aculabs’ business will\\nbe severe” because Aculabs “will not receive Medicare-derived\\nreimbursement sufficient to cover its costs.” J.A. 49.\\nRequiring the Secretary to collect more fully representative\\nmarket data and use it to calculate a new weighted median\\nappears sufficiently likely to increase Medicare reimbursement\\nrates to establish redressability at this stage.\\n\\n The Secretary briefly protests that ACLA cannot claim\\nlower repayment rates as an injury for standing purposes\\nbecause the statute expressly prohibits challenging the rates.\\nSee Appellee’s Br. 25-26. That argument conflates two issues.\\nIt is true that ACLA cannot challenge the rates themselves\\nunder the statute’s jurisdiction-stripping provision. See 42\\nU.S.C. § 1395m-1(h)(1). But that does mean the rates cannot\\nbe the source of ACLA’s members’ injury in a challenge to the\\n\\f 13\\ndata-collection rule. What matters is that ACLA’s challenge\\n(here, to the definition of applicable laboratory for purposes of\\ndata collection) is sufficiently linked to its asserted injury\\n(lower reimbursement rates). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d\\n895, 899 (D.C. Cir. 2002). We assess in the next section the\\ndistinct issue whether ACLA’s challenge is an impermissible\\nback-door effort to challenge reimbursement rates in\\ncircumvention of the statutory bar.\\n\\n III. Jurisdiction Stripping\\n\\n The primary question on appeal is whether PAMA’s\\nprovision eliminating administrative and judicial review of the\\n“establishment of payment amounts,” 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-\\n1(h)(1), bars our review of the rule the Secretary promulgated\\nto implement the statute’s data-collection provision, 81 Fed.\\nReg. 41,036. When deciding whether a statute bars judicial\\nreview, we begin with “the strong presumption that Congress\\nintends judicial review of administrative action.” Smith v.\\nBerryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765, 1776 (2019) (quoting Bowen v.\\nMich. Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670 (1986)).\\nEven where, as here, a statutory provision expressly prohibits\\njudicial review, the presumption applies to dictate that such a\\nprovision be read narrowly. See Dart v. United States, 848\\nF.2d 217, 221 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “When a statute is ‘reasonably\\nsusceptible to divergent interpretation, we adopt the reading\\nthat accords with traditional understandings and basic\\nprinciples: that executive determinations generally are subject\\nto judicial review.’” Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 251\\n(2010) (quoting Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S.\\n417, 434 (1995)). “Whether and to what extent a particular\\nstatute precludes judicial review is determined not only from\\nits express language, but also from the structure of the statutory\\nscheme, its objectives, its legislative history, and the nature of\\n\\f 14\\nthe administrative action involved.” Block v. Cmty. Nutrition\\nInst., 467 U.S. 340, 345 (1984).\\n\\n We start with the text: “There shall be no administrative\\nor judicial review under section 1395ff of this title, section\\n1395oo of this title, or otherwise, of the establishment of\\npayment amounts under this section.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-\\n1(h)(1). The header of subsection (a) of the statute—the part\\nthat defines the parameters for data collection—cross-\\nreferences payment rates in announcing that it deals with\\n“[r]eporting of private sector payment rates for establishment\\nof medicare payment rates.” See id. § 1395m-1(a). The district\\ncourt concluded that the language of the jurisdiction-stripping\\nprovision combined with the header of subsection (a) meant\\nthat data collection was “part and parcel of ‘the establishment\\nof payment amounts under this section,’ which Congress\\nshielded from judicial review.” Am. Clinical Lab. Ass’n, 334\\nF. Supp. 3d at 307.\\n\\n That conclusion is plausible, but the text does not compel\\nit. Several features of the statute suggest that Congress meant\\nto bar challenges to the “establishment of payment amounts”\\nbut not to prevent review of the rule delineating the data\\ncollection practices that precede and inform the setting of those\\namounts. The jurisdiction-stripping provision itself bars\\nreview “under section 1395ff of this title, section 1395oo of\\nthis title, or otherwise.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(h)(1). The two\\ncross-referenced sections cover administrative appeals by\\npatients or providers who wish to contest a coverage\\ndetermination or reimbursement amount. See 42 U.S.C.\\n§§ 1395oo, 1395ff. That suggests Congress intended to\\npreclude review of the amounts of money paid in the ultimate\\nreimbursement decisions. Additionally, subsection (a)’s\\nreference to reporting private sector data for the establishment\\nof payment amounts suggests that the two are not one and the\\n\\f 15\\nsame, but rather that collecting data from the private sector is a\\nseparate statutory duty preceding the establishment of\\nMedicare payment rates. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a). Indeed,\\nthe final rule on data collection is not an “establishment of\\npayment amounts,” but a blueprint for which laboratories must\\nreport private payor data to the Secretary, how they must do so,\\nand what consequences they face for noncompliance. 81 Fed.\\nReg. at 41,037.\\n\\n The structure of PAMA bespeaks the separation between\\ndata collection and pricing. In subsections (b), (c), and (d) on\\nexisting, new, and new advanced diagnostic laboratory\\nservices, Congress explained that it was directing the Secretary\\nhenceforth to calculate “weighted median” market-based\\nprices for existing services and to “gapfill” and consult an\\nexpert panel to determine prices for new and new advanced\\nservices. In a separate provision, Congress detailed the\\nframework for data collection. Compare 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-\\n1(b)-(d) (establishing processes for determining Medicare\\nrates), with id. § 1395m-1(a) (establishing processes for\\ncollecting private-payor data). Whereas the rate-setting\\nprovisions affect reimbursements for Medicare services, the\\ndata-collection part of the statute imposes new obligations on\\nprivate parties (applicable laboratories). The latter requires\\nreporting of confidential data about private market rates—data\\nnot otherwise used in any government program—so that the\\nSecretary may analyze it to formulate Medicare rates. Id.\\n§ 1395m-1(a). The Secretary is required to “establish through\\nnotice and comment rulemaking parameters for data collection\\nunder this subsection.” Id. § 1395m-1(a)(12). An applicable\\nlab’s failure to provide the specified information exposes it to\\nsignificant monetary penalties. Id. § 1395m-1(a)(9).\\n\\n Textual and structural analysis of jurisdiction-stripping\\nprovisions in other statutes supports the Secretary’s position\\n\\f 16\\nthat Congress did not bar review of PAMA’s entire process for\\ncollecting data on private-payor rates. See Bowen, 476 U.S. at\\n675-76 (holding that the provision limiting review of amounts\\nof benefit payments under the Medicare program did not bar\\nreview of the method by which such amounts were computed).\\nIn Texas Alliance for Home Care Services v. Sebelius, for\\nexample, we concluded that a provision’s “broad and\\nunequivocally preclusive language” barring review of “the\\nawarding of contracts” under Medicare also barred review of\\nthe “applicable financial standards” that medical equipment\\nsuppliers must meet in order to be eligible for those contracts.\\n681 F.3d 402, 409-11 & n.9 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In that case, the\\nchallenged “applicable financial standards” were listed in the\\nstatute itself as a “[c]ondition[] for awarding contract[s].” 42\\nU.S.C. § 1395w-3(b). In other words, the statutory text made\\nclear that the challenged action (defining applicable financial\\nstandards) was encompassed within the terms of unreviewable\\naction (awarding contracts). The same was true in Mercy\\nHospital, Inc. v. Azar, where we held that a statute barring\\njudicial review of “prospective payment rates” covered a\\nchallenge to the formula the Secretary used to calculate those\\nrates. 891 F.3d 1062, 1067 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Through internal\\ncross-references, the “language of the statute tie[d] together the\\nprospective payment rate and the statutory adjustments” used\\nto calculate that rate. Id.\\n\\n Unlike the provisions at issue in Texas Alliance and Mercy\\nHospital, the statutory text here does not subsume the data\\ncollection process within the establishment of payment\\namounts. On the contrary, Congress set out the process for data\\ncollection in a separate and distinct subsection and with its own\\nset of rules. Congress also required that the parameters for that\\ndata collection be established through notice and comment\\nrulemaking. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a)(12). Neither of the\\nstatutes at issue in Texas Alliance or Mercy Hospital had\\n\\f 17\\nexplicit notice and comment requirements. And, as our\\nprecedent makes clear, part of the purpose of notice and\\ncomment rulemaking is to ensure the parties develop a record\\nfor judicial review. See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of\\nAm. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 407 F.3d 1250, 1259\\n(D.C. Cir. 2005) (“[Rulemaking n]otice requirements are\\ndesigned . . . to give affected parties an opportunity to develop\\nevidence in the record to support their objections to the rule and\\nthereby enhance the quality of judicial review.”).\\n\\n Because the gathering of data under PAMA is not\\n“inextricably intertwined” with the establishment of payment\\nrates, we lack a basis on which to infer that Congress, in\\neliminating jurisdiction over the latter, clearly meant also to bar\\nreview of the former. Cf. Florida Health Scis. Ctr., Inc. v.\\nSec’y of Health & Human Servs., 830 F.3d 515, 521 (D.C. Cir.\\n2016). We held that we lacked jurisdiction in Florida Health\\nfor reasons that appear at first blush to apply here. The statute\\nat issue in Florida Health required the Secretary to identify as\\nDisproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) entitled to additional\\nfederal compensation those hospitals serving high proportions\\nof poor patients. When the Affordable Care Act directed that\\nDSH status be based largely on the percentage of the nation’s\\noverall uncompensated care each hospital provides, the\\nSecretary chose to estimate that percentage by reference to the\\nnumber of days Medicaid and low-income Medicare patients\\nspent in a given hospital as a proportion of the national total of\\nsuch patients’ hospital days. Id. at 517; see 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 1395ww(r)(2)(C). In other words, the Secretary used a\\nhospital’s national share of Medicaid and low-income\\nMedicare patient care as a proxy for its share of uncompensated\\ncare. See Florida Health, 830 F.3d at 517. The Secretary did\\nso because research supported the correlation between a\\nhospital’s national shares of uninsured patients and its poor-\\ninsured, and the proxy data was already readily available and\\n\\f 18\\nsubject to audit. Id. The statute expressly precluded review of\\nthe Secretary’s uncompensated care estimates, see id.\\n§ 1395ww(r)(3)(A), but plaintiffs sought review of those\\nestimates anyway by challenging the accuracy of the Medicaid\\ndata on which they were based, Florida Health, 830 F.3d at\\n518. We held that the statutory bar on the Secretary’s\\n“estimate” of how much uncompensated care a hospital\\nprovided also barred review of the proxy data on which the\\nSecretary relied. Id. at 518-19. We “could not review a\\ndecision that was ‘indispensable’ or ‘integral’ to, or\\n‘inextricably intertwined,’ with the unreviewable agency\\naction.” Id. at 519 (quoting Texas Alliance, 681 F.3d at 409-\\n11).\\n\\n Important distinctions between the issues in this case and\\nFlorida Health show that the data collection process at issue\\nhere is not “inextricably intertwined” with the unreviewable\\nestablishment of payment amounts. Most importantly, unlike\\nPAMA, the statute in Florida Health did not have a separate\\ndata-collection provision imposing new obligations on private\\nparties nor did it have a notice and comment requirement. It\\nsimply directed the Secretary to estimate the amount of\\nuncompensated services using “appropriate data,” including\\ndata that the Secretary may “determine[]” serves as an adequate\\nproxy for uncompensated care rates. 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 1395ww(r)(2)(C). The statute’s text and structure made clear\\nthat choosing which data to use was part of the Secretary’s\\nunreviewable obligation to estimate uncompensated care rates.\\nFlorida Health, 830 F.3d at 517, 519.\\n\\n PAMA’s data collection provision, on the other hand, is\\ndistinct from its rate-estimation provisions. For data collection,\\nthe statute obligates clinical laboratories that participate in the\\nMedicare program to report distinct reimbursement rates they\\nreceive from private insurers and requires the Secretary to\\n\\f 19\\nestablish the rules governing that reporting through notice and\\ncomment rulemaking. To be sure, the results of that data\\ncollection process are used to establish Medicare payment\\namounts. But the statute’s bifurcated structure supports\\nACLA’s view that the two provisions and the processes they\\nrequire are distinct. This case differs from DCH Regional\\nMedical Center v. Azar, 925 F.3d 503 (D.C. Cir. 2019), for\\nsimilar reasons. We held there that a “methodology” used to\\ngenerate uncompensated care estimates under the same statute\\nat issue in Florida Health was itself unreviewable because\\nthere was “no textual basis for separating estimates from their\\nunderlying methodology,” id. at 507; the data-collection\\nprovision of PAMA, in contrast, is separate from the provisions\\nestablishing payment amounts. That the statutory scheme\\nrequires private laboratories to report non-Medicare and\\ngenerally confidential business information (private market\\nrates) to the government on pain of monetary penalties further\\nstands this statutory scheme in sharp contrast to others where\\nthe challenged action was found to be intertwined with other\\nagency actions regarding which Congress had barred judicial\\nreview.\\n\\n The government argues that it would make scant sense for\\nCongress to have barred review only of “basic math” while\\n“permitting review of every discretionary step that preceded\\nthat math.” Appellee Br. 33. But establishing payment\\namounts sometimes involves more than rote math. For\\nestablished laboratory services, the Secretary must array\\nprivate payor data from thousands of laboratories and calculate\\na weighted median for each separate laboratory service. 42\\nU.S.C. § 1395m-1(b)(2). For new tests, regarding which\\nprivate payor data does not yet exist, the Secretary must\\nconsider more complicated criteria and consult an expert panel.\\nSee id. § 1395m-1(c)-(d), (f). That process is a good deal more\\ncomplex and discretionary than rote math.\\n\\f 20\\n In view of PAMA’s text, its structure, and the distinct\\nnature of the processes of data collection and establishment of\\npayment rates, we cannot conclude that the bar against\\nreviewing the “establishment of payment amounts” also\\nprevents our review of the rule setting up a new and detailed\\nprocess for collecting data on market rates that private insurers\\npay to laboratories. Because the statute is “reasonably\\nsusceptible” to this interpretation, we hold that it does not bar\\njudicial review of the Secretary’s rule establishing the\\nparameters of data collection under 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a).\\nGutierrez de Martinez, 515 U.S. at 434.\\n\\n IV. Ultra Vires\\n\\n ACLA also argues that, even if the jurisdictional limitation\\nof Section 1395m-1(h) applies, we should nonetheless review\\nthe Secretary’s final rule because it “exceeds his statutory\\nauthority and is ultra vires.” Appellant’s Br. 61. Although we\\nhold that the statute itself does not bar review, we nonetheless\\nconsider ACLA’s ultra vires argument because, if valid, it\\nwould not just open the courthouse door, but invalidate the rule\\nand obviate any need to remand to the district court for\\nconsideration of the arbitrary-and-capricious challenge.\\n\\n If an agency exceeds “its statutory bounds, judicial review\\nremains available” to curb the rogue action. SAS Inst., Inc. v.\\nIancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359 (2018). To challenge agency\\naction on the ground that it is ultra vires, ACLA must show a\\n“patent violation of agency authority.” Indep. Cosmetic Mfrs.\\n& Distribs., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 574\\nF.2d 553, 555 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Ultra vires review “is intended\\nto be of extremely limited scope,” and it “represents a more\\ndifficult course . . . than would review under the APA.”\\nTrudeau v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 456 F.3d 178, 190 (D.C. Cir.\\n2006) (internal quotations omitted).\\n\\f 21\\n Here, the statute says that applicable laboratory “means a\\nlaboratory that, with respect to its revenues under this\\nsubchapter, a majority of such revenues are from” the PFS and\\nCLFS. 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a)(2) (emphasis added). ACLA\\nargues that choosing to compare a laboratory’s total revenues\\nfrom the PFS and CLFS against the “total Medicare revenues\\nof any entity with an NPI (of which the laboratory is often only\\none component),” Appellant’s Br. 64, violates the statute’s\\ncommand that the reporting unit be the laboratory rather than a\\nbroader entity. Again, the reporting unit matters because\\ncomparing a hospital laboratory’s reimbursements from PFS\\nand CLFS to the entire hospital’s Medicare revenue (as\\nopposed to just the hospital laboratory’s Medicare revenue)\\nmeans that a hospital laboratory without its own, laboratory-\\nspecific NPI will not qualify as an applicable laboratory under\\nthe statute.\\n\\n HHS did not clearly step so far outside the scope of the\\ntask that Congress gave it as to have acted ultra vires. PAMA\\ndoes not define the term “laboratory,” and the Secretary’s\\ncharge was to operationalize that important term despite its\\nambiguity. After incorporating industry comments into the\\nfinal rule, the Secretary chose to identify laboratories by their\\nNPI numbers. See J.A. 563-64 (Florida Hospital Association\\nrecommending HHS define applicable laboratory at the NPI\\nlevel rather than the TIN level); compare 80 Fed. Reg. at\\n59,387 (proposing use of TIN numbers), with 81 Fed. Reg. at\\n41,037 (deciding to use NPI numbers). Appellant’s objection\\nto the Secretary’s efforts, even if meritorious, does not\\nestablish that the Secretary acted ultra vires. We leave to the\\ndistrict court on remand to address in the first instance the\\nmerits of petitioner’s arbitrary-and-capricious challenge.\\n\\f 22\\n * * *\\n\\n For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the district\\ncourt’s holding on subject matter jurisdiction and remand for\\nfurther proceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\n So ordered.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4421129/\", \"author_raw\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge PILLARD\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"GRIFFITH"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MILLETT"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"PILLARD"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4643876/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: AMERICAN CLINICAL LABORATORY ASSOCIATION, Appellant v. Alex Michael AZAR, II, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-30\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued April 23, 2019 Decided July 30, 2019\n\n No. 18-5312\n\n AMERICAN CLINICAL LABORATORY ASSOCIATION,\n APPELLANT\n\n v.\n\n ALEX MICHAEL AZAR, II, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS\n SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,\n APPELLEE\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the District of Columbia\n (No. 1:17-cv-02645)\n\n\n Ashley C. Parrish argued the cause for appellant. With\nhim on the briefs were Mark D. Polston, Elizabeth N. Swayne,\nand Amelia G. Yowell.\n\n R. Scott Caulkins and Jeffrey J. Sherrin were on the brief\nfor amicus curiae American Association of Bioanalysts in\nsupport of plaintiffs-appellant.\n\n David McAloon was on the brief for amici curiae The\nCollege of American Pathologists, et al. in support of appellant.\n\n Dennis Fan, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued\nthe cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Abby C.\n\f 2\nWright, Attorney, Robert P. Charrow, General Counsel, U.S.\nDepartment of Health & Human Services, Janice L. Hoffman,\nAssociate General Counsel, Susan Maxson Lyons, Deputy\nAssociate General Counsel, and Debra M. Laboschin,\nAttorney. Alisa B. Klein, Attorney U.S. Department of Justice,\nentered an appearance.\n\n Before: GRIFFITH, MILLETT and PILLARD, Circuit Judges.\n\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge PILLARD.\n\n PILLARD, Circuit Judge: The Protecting Access to\nMedicare Act (PAMA, or the Act) seeks to align Medicare\nreimbursement rates for laboratory tests with rates paid for\nsuch tests in the private market. To enable the Secretary of\nHealth and Human Services (HHS) to ascertain the private\nmarket’s reimbursement rates, PAMA requires “applicable\nlaboratories” to report private payor data to the Secretary that\nthe Medicare program then uses to set new, presumably lower,\nMedicare reimbursement rates. The Secretary must implement\nthe statute’s definition of “applicable laboratory” before it can\nbe used to collect the requisite data. In 2016, the Secretary\nissued a final rule doing so, and plaintiff American Clinical\nLaboratory Association (ACLA) filed suit claiming the rule\nunlawfully excluded most hospital laboratories from the Act’s\nreporting requirements.\n\n Based on PAMA’s prohibition of judicial review of “the\nestablishment of payment amounts,” the district court\ndismissed ACLA’s complaint for lack of subject matter\njurisdiction. We conclude that the statutory provision stripping\njurisdiction to review payment amounts does not cover the\nstatute’s data-collection provision. We also reject ACLA’s\nclaim that the Secretary’s rule was ultra vires. We thus reverse\n\f 3\nand remand to the district court to consider in the first instance\nwhether the rule comports with the APA.\n\n I. Background\n\n The federal Medicare program, which pays for healthcare\nfor elderly and disabled individuals, see 42 U.S.C. § 1395 et\nseq., is the nation’s largest purchaser of clinical laboratory\nservices. In 2013, the HHS Office of Inspector General\nconcluded that Medicare was paying 18 to 30 percent more\nthan private insurance companies for a range of common\nlaboratory tests. Congress responded by enacting the\nProtecting Access to Medicare Act, Pub. L. No. 113-93, 128\nStat. 1040 (2014). A central goal of the Act is to set Medicare\nreimbursement rates for laboratory tests at approximately the\nprice private insurers pay for the same tests. See 42 U.S.C.\n§ 1395m-1(b)(1)(A).\n\n To inform the Secretary’s rate setting, the statute requires\n“applicable laborator[ies]” within the private sector to report\n“private payor” data—both the price and volume of laboratory\ntests—to HHS every three years. Id. § 1395m-1(a). The statute\ndefines the term “private payor” as a “health insurance issuer\nand a group health plan,” a “Medicare Advantage plan,” or a\n“medicaid managed care organization.” Id. § 1395m-1(a)(8).\nIt calls on the Secretary to establish parameters for data\ncollection through notice and comment rulemaking. Id.\n§ 1395m-1(a)(12). Applicable laboratories that fail to report\naccurate data face monetary penalties of up to $10,000 per day.\nId. § 1395m-1(a)(9).\n\n In separate provisions, the statute explains how the\nSecretary is to use private payor data on each laboratory test\nalready available in the market to calculate a “weighted\nmedian” rate, which becomes Medicare’s reimbursement rate\nfor that test. Id. § 1395m-1(b). For new tests that do not have\n\f 4\nprivate payor data, the Secretary is to use a “gapfilling process”\nand consult with an expert advisory panel to establish the new\ntest’s Medicare payment rate. Id. §§ 1395m-1(c)-(d), (f).\nBecause the market-approximating Medicare rates are likely to\nbe lower than existing Medicare rates, the statute allows for a\nmulti-year “[p]hase-in” process to transition to the market-\nbased rates. Id. § 1395m-1(b)(3). Finally, the statute declares\nthat “[t]here shall be no administrative or judicial review . . . of\nthe establishment of payment amounts under this section,” id.\n§ 1395m-1(h)(1), thereby barring otherwise available review\nby the Departmental Appeals Board and Provider\nReimbursement Board as well as the federal courts.\n\n This appeal is about whether the Secretary’s\nimplementation of PAMA’s definition of “applicable\nlaboratories” is subject to review in response to a claim that it\nunlawfully excludes hospital laboratories—which tend to\ncharge higher prices than standalone laboratories—from the\ndataset used to determine new Medicare rates. See Medicare\nProgram; Medicare Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests\nPayment System, 81 Fed. Reg. 41,036 (June 23, 2016).\nLaboratory tests are available to the public through three main\ntypes of laboratories: physician-office laboratories (which in\n2015 comprised 17 percent of all labs), independent\nlaboratories (50 percent of all labs), and hospital laboratories\n(33 percent of all labs). The statute does not expressly discuss\nthose distinct types of institutional settings, instead generally\ndefining an applicable laboratory as “a laboratory that, with\nrespect to its revenues under this subchapter, a majority of such\nrevenues are from this section, section 1395l(h) of this title, or\nsection 1395w-4 of this title.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a)(2). In\nplain terms, that definition refers to a laboratory that receives\nmost of its overall Medicare funding from the Physician Fee\nSchedule (PFS) or the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule\n(CLFS). Those Medicare fee schedules are typically used to\n\f 5\npay for laboratory services provided by independent\nlaboratories and physician-office laboratories. We refer to this\npart of the statute’s definition of applicable labs as the\nmajority-payments test. 1\n\n Applying the majority-payments test to hospital\nlaboratories has proved more complicated than for independent\nlaboratories and physician-office laboratories. Medicare\nreimburses laboratory services provided by hospital\nlaboratories in a range of different ways, and it is not obvious\nwhich, if any, are relevant to PAMA. When hospital\nlaboratories serve admitted inpatients and registered\noutpatients, Medicare does not use the PFS or CLFS, but pays\nfor those services through distinct fee schedules that bundle the\nlaboratory testing with other hospital services. See Medicare\nProgram; Medicare Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests\nPayment System, 80 Fed. Reg. 59,386, 59,393 (Oct. 1, 2015).\nA hospital laboratory serving only inpatients and outpatients\naccordingly is not an applicable laboratory under PAMA\nbecause it receives no Medicare reimbursements from the\napplicable fee schedules.\n\n However, some hospitals also provide “outreach\nservices”—that is, laboratory services for people who are\nneither inpatients nor outpatients. Hospitals’ outreach services\nmay compete for such business with independent laboratories,\nand Medicare reimburses hospitals for those services under the\n\n1\n The statute authorizes the Secretary to establish a “low volume or\nlow expenditure threshold” to exclude especially small laboratories.\n42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a)(2). The Secretary has set the low\nexpenditure threshold at $12,500, meaning that labs receiving less\nthan $12,500 of Medicare revenue from the CLFS and PFS are\nexempt from reporting requirements. ACLA does not challenge that\nprovision, which exempts approximately 95 percent of physician-\noffice laboratories.\n\f 6\nPFS and CLFS. Considered as a freestanding entity, a hospital\nlaboratory that offered outreach services could fit the statutory\ndefinition of an applicable laboratory if it received most of its\nMedicare revenue from the PFS and CLFS.\n\n In October 2015, the Secretary proposed a rule to\nimplement the data reporting provision of PAMA. See 80 Fed.\nReg. at 59,386. The Secretary acknowledged that it was\n“important” to “define laboratory broadly enough to\nencompass every laboratory type that is subject to” the\napplicable fee schedules, id. at 59,391, so proposed to include\nany “entity that includes a laboratory” as well as any “entity\nthat itself is a laboratory,” id. at 59,392. But to make the\nthreshold identification of the relevant entity to be scrutinized\nunder the statutory majority-payments test, the proposed rule\ndefined “entity” as the institutional unit associated with a\ndistinct taxpayer identification number (TIN). Id. at 59,387. A\nTIN is the institutional identifier Medicare service providers\nuse to report to the IRS tax-related information about all types\nof Medicare payments. Id. at 59,421.\n\n The practical effect of applying the majority-payments test\nto an entity defined by its TIN would be that essentially no\nhospital laboratory could qualify as an applicable laboratory.\nSee id. at 59,393. An independent laboratory that takes\nMedicare payments has a TIN, but so does an entire hospital\nthat takes Medicare payments. Identifying the relevant entity\nat the level of the TIN would mean that, for purposes of the\nmajority-payments test, Medicare reimbursements to a hospital\nlab under the PFS and CLFS would be compared to the entire\nhospital’s Medicare revenue rather than to its laboratory’s\nMedicare revenue. Hospitals, in contrast to stand-alone\nlaboratories, receive Medicare reimbursements for a wide\nrange of services—everything from surgeries to room and\nboard—so even if the hospital laboratory received the majority\n\f 7\nof its Medicare revenue from the PFS and CLFS, the majority\nof the hospital’s overall Medicare revenues would not come\nfrom those fee schedules.\n\n Insofar as hospitals’ Medicare revenue associated with\nthose fee schedules is dwarfed by their other types of Medicare\nrevenue, reliance on the TIN to define the relevant entity would\nexclude all hospital-based laboratories from the “applicable\nlaboratories” reporting requirement at the threshold, without\nsubjecting the laboratories as such to the majority-payments\ntest. The Secretary anticipated that consequence, explaining:\n“[W]e believe the statute intends to limit reporting primarily to\nindependent laboratories and physician offices . . . and not to\ninclude other entities (such as hospitals, or other health care\nproviders) that do not receive the majority of their revenues\nfrom PFS or CLFS services.” Id. at 59,393.\n\n Many healthcare entities and other stakeholders opposed\nthat part of the proposed rule, arguing that reading the statute’s\ndefinition of applicable laboratory to generally exclude\nhospital laboratories violated PAMA. See, e.g., 81 Fed. Reg.\nat 41,045. Why did that matter? A major laboratory services\nprovider asserted that hospital laboratories receive 1.5 to 4\ntimes higher private payor reimbursement rates than\nindependent laboratories for the same test. (The record does\nnot specify whether that estimate isolated reimbursement\npursuant to the PFS or CLFS schedules, or included laboratory\ntests provided—presumably at greater cost—as part of\ninpatient and outpatient services). The American Hospital\nAssociation advocated in favor of requiring hospital\nlaboratories to report their rate data, believing that would\n“generally increase the weighted median,” and make the new\nMedicare rates “more representative of overall market rates.”\nJoint Appendix (J.A.) 595 (letter to Acting Administrator of\nCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Services).\n\f 8\n Commenters advocated identifying entities by their\nNational Provider Identifier (NPI) numbers rather than their\nTIN. Healthcare providers use NPI numbers to bill Medicare.\nBecause more hospital laboratories have NPI numbers distinct\nfrom those of their associated hospitals, they reasoned,\nidentifying the relevant entity at the NPI level would mean\nhospital laboratories with their own NPI numbers would be\nevaluated for whether they, considered separately, meet the\nmajority-payments test defining “applicable laboratories.”\n\n In the final rule issued in June 2016, the Secretary accepted\nthat suggestion and defined applicable laboratories at the NPI\nlevel rather than the TIN level. 2 81 Fed. Reg. at 41,037. The\nfinal rule reiterated the Secretary’s reading of the statute as\nexcluding the majority of hospital laboratories because those\nlaboratories receive most of their Medicare revenue from\nbundled payments for inpatients and outpatients rather than\nfrom the CLFS or PFS. Id. at 41,045. However, the Secretary\n“agree[d] with commenters” that hospital outreach\nlaboratories—i.e., “laboratories that furnish laboratory tests for\npatients that are not admitted hospital inpatients or registered\noutpatients of the hospital” and that “are enrolled in Medicare\nseparately from the hospital of which they are a part”—“should\nbe accounted for” in the new payment rates. Id.\n\n As it turns out, however, NPIs suffer from virtually the\nsame flaw as TINs because “[v]ery few hospitals have\nlaboratory-specific NPIs, and they generally submit claims\nunder the hospital’s NPI.” J.A. 271 (letter from ACLA to\nDepartment of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector\n\n2\n The rule rejected commenters’ alternative suggestion that entities\nbe identified by their Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments\n(CLIA) certificate, which is used to certify that a laboratory meets\nhealth and safety regulations, because that certificate is not\nassociated with Medicare billing. 81 Fed. Reg. at 41,045-46.\n\f 9\nGeneral). In 2016, approximately 2,000 out of 260,000 total\nlaboratories nationwide (0.7 percent) reported data to the\nSecretary. Out of the approximately 7,000 hospital laboratories\nin the United States, only 21 (0.3 percent) reported data,\ncomprising about one percent of all the reporting labs. Much\nof the data collected by the Secretary came from the country’s\ntwo largest independent laboratories—Quest and Labcorp—\nwhich have lower cost structures than other laboratories. See\nJ.A. 70-71 (Declaration from Senior Vice President of Quest\nDiagnostics). According to ACLA, that skewed the Medicare\nreimbursement rates low. The government, for its part,\nmaintains that the data used to calculate the 2018 rates “was\nsufficient and resulted in accurate weighted medians of private\npayor rates.” See Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment\nPolicies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other\nRevisions, 83 Fed. Reg. 59,452, 59,672 (Nov. 23, 2018).\n\n In 2018, the Secretary finalized another rule—not at issue\nhere—that amended the implementation of “applicable\nlaboratories” in an effort to include more hospital-based\noutreach laboratory services in the next set of data. Id. at\n59,452. As HHS explained, “we are confident that our current\npolicy supports our collecting sufficient applicable information\n. . . and that we received sufficient and reliable applicable\ninformation with which we set [2018 rates],” but “we continue\nto consider refinements to our policies that could lead to\nincluding even more applicable information for the next data\nreporting period.” Id. at 59,672. The 2018 rule requires\nlaboratories providing outreach services to report data using the\nCMS–1450 14x TOB—a billing form used only by hospital\noutreach laboratories. Id. at 59,673-75. The new rule, in effect,\ncategorizes as an applicable laboratory that portion of a\nhospital laboratory that provides outreach services—even if\nthose services comprise only a minority of the laboratory’s\noverall services. See id. at 59,673 (“[W]e believe that if we\n\f 10\nwere to utilize such an approach in defining applicable\nlaboratory, all hospital outreach laboratories would meet the\nmajority of Medicare revenues threshold . . .”). Notably, this\napproach was not encompassed by the relief that ACLA seeks\nhere. ACLA is emphatic that the statute requires the Secretary\nto use the hospital laboratory as the denominator in the\nmajority-payments test. See Appellant’s Br. 65. The Secretary\nwill use the new data about hospital laboratories’ outreach\nservices in a revised fee schedule as of January 1, 2021. 80\nFed. Reg. at 59,667.\n\n Plaintiff in this case, American Clinical Laboratory\nAssociation, is a trade association of laboratories. It submitted\ncomments to the Secretary both before the 2015 proposed rule\nand before the 2016 final rule. See J.A. 82. ACLA brought\nsuit in 2017 to challenge the 2016 rule’s implementation of\napplicable laboratory as contrary to the statute and arbitrary\nand capricious in violation of the APA. The district court\ndismissed for want of jurisdiction. Am. Clinical Lab. Ass’n v.\nAzar, 334 F. Supp. 3d 301, 309 (D.D.C. 2018). This Court\nreviews de novo a district court’s legal determination as to\nsubject matter jurisdiction. See Piersall v. Winter, 435 F.3d\n319, 321 (D.C. Cir. 2006).\n\n II. Standing\n\n Although the Secretary scarcely challenges standing on\nappeal, we have an independent obligation to assure ourselves\nthat ACLA has standing to challenge the final rule. Steel Co.\nv. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). The\n“constitutional minimum” of standing requires that a plaintiff\nhave suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly\ntraceable to the challenged conduct and is likely to be redressed\nby a favorable decision. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504\nU.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). In order to have associational\n\f 11\nstanding, ACLA must demonstrate that “at least one of [its]\nmembers satisfies” this test. See Am. Library Ass’n v. FCC,\n401 F.3d 489, 492 (D.C. Cir. 2005). At the motion to dismiss\nstage, “general factual allegations of injury resulting from the\ndefendant’s conduct may suffice” to establish standing. Lujan,\n504 U.S. at 561. We hold that ACLA meets those familiar\nrequirements.\n\n First, ACLA has established injury in fact. By adopting an\nimpermissible definition of “applicable laboratories” that\nexcludes virtually all hospital laboratories, ACLA asserts that\nthe rule harms its members in various ways. First, it\ndisproportionately burdens independent laboratories with the\ncost of data-production obligations not borne by its hospital-\nbased competitor laboratories. ACLA submitted a declaration\nfrom the Senior Vice President of Quest Diagnostics, an ACLA\nmember, asserting that “laboratories that reported private payor\ninformation were significantly disadvantaged as compared to\nother laboratories that, while required to report under PAMA,\nwere excused from that obligation by the Secretary.” J.A. 73.\nSecond, it artificially depresses the reimbursement rates by\nexcluding data from a portion of the market that receives\nhigher-than-average Medicare reimbursements for its\nlaboratory services. An affidavit from the Chief Executive\nOfficer of Joint Venture Hospital Laboratories, LLC, an ACLA\nmember, attests that the “elimination of . . . hospital[]\nlaboratories from the reporting requirements skews the data”\nthat is used to calculate the weighted median of commercial\npayor rates and ultimately set the Medicare reimbursement\nrate. J.A. 61. And, because “hospital laboratories typically\nreceive higher commercial rates than other types of\nlaboratories,” the Medicare reimbursement rates are lower than\nthey would be if the Secretary collected more data from\nhospital laboratories. Id.; see also U.S. Gov’t Accountability\nOffice, GAO 19-67, Medicare Laboratory Tests;\n\f 12\nImplementation of New Rates May Lead to Billions in Excess\nPayment 12 (2018), https://www.gao.gov/assets/\n700/695756.pdf (hospital laboratories “typically receive\nrelatively higher private-payer rates . . . by leveraging the\nmarket power of their affiliated hospital when negotiating rates\nwith private payers.”). ACLA has adequately shown that at\nleast one of its members is reimbursed by Medicare at a rate\nlower than it would be if we were to rule in ACLA’s favor and\ninvalidate the challenged limitation in the definition of\n“applicable laboratory.” That establishes injury in fact.\n\n As for causation and redressability, ACLA has met its\nburden at this stage. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. According to\nthe Joint Venture Hospital Laboratories affidavit, excluding\ndata from hospital laboratories “significantly depress[es]” the\nweighted median payment rates that are used to generate the\nnew Medicare fee schedule. J.A. 62. Another declaration, by\nthe President of Aculabs, Inc. (also a member of ACLA),\nattests: “If the Secretary’s failure to implement Congress’s\ndirectives is not corrected, the impact on Aculabs’ business will\nbe severe” because Aculabs “will not receive Medicare-derived\nreimbursement sufficient to cover its costs.” J.A. 49.\nRequiring the Secretary to collect more fully representative\nmarket data and use it to calculate a new weighted median\nappears sufficiently likely to increase Medicare reimbursement\nrates to establish redressability at this stage.\n\n The Secretary briefly protests that ACLA cannot claim\nlower repayment rates as an injury for standing purposes\nbecause the statute expressly prohibits challenging the rates.\nSee Appellee’s Br. 25-26. That argument conflates two issues.\nIt is true that ACLA cannot challenge the rates themselves\nunder the statute’s jurisdiction-stripping provision. See 42\nU.S.C. § 1395m-1(h)(1). But that does mean the rates cannot\nbe the source of ACLA’s members’ injury in a challenge to the\n\f 13\ndata-collection rule. What matters is that ACLA’s challenge\n(here, to the definition of applicable laboratory for purposes of\ndata collection) is sufficiently linked to its asserted injury\n(lower reimbursement rates). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d\n895, 899 (D.C. Cir. 2002). We assess in the next section the\ndistinct issue whether ACLA’s challenge is an impermissible\nback-door effort to challenge reimbursement rates in\ncircumvention of the statutory bar.\n\n III. Jurisdiction Stripping\n\n The primary question on appeal is whether PAMA’s\nprovision eliminating administrative and judicial review of the\n“establishment of payment amounts,” 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-\n1(h)(1), bars our review of the rule the Secretary promulgated\nto implement the statute’s data-collection provision, 81 Fed.\nReg. 41,036. When deciding whether a statute bars judicial\nreview, we begin with “the strong presumption that Congress\nintends judicial review of administrative action.” Smith v.\nBerryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765, 1776 (2019) (quoting Bowen v.\nMich. Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670 (1986)).\nEven where, as here, a statutory provision expressly prohibits\njudicial review, the presumption applies to dictate that such a\nprovision be read narrowly. See Dart v. United States, 848\nF.2d 217, 221 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “When a statute is ‘reasonably\nsusceptible to divergent interpretation, we adopt the reading\nthat accords with traditional understandings and basic\nprinciples: that executive determinations generally are subject\nto judicial review.’” Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 251\n(2010) (quoting Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S.\n417, 434 (1995)). “Whether and to what extent a particular\nstatute precludes judicial review is determined not only from\nits express language, but also from the structure of the statutory\nscheme, its objectives, its legislative history, and the nature of\n\f 14\nthe administrative action involved.” Block v. Cmty. Nutrition\nInst., 467 U.S. 340, 345 (1984).\n\n We start with the text: “There shall be no administrative\nor judicial review under section 1395ff of this title, section\n1395oo of this title, or otherwise, of the establishment of\npayment amounts under this section.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-\n1(h)(1). The header of subsection (a) of the statute—the part\nthat defines the parameters for data collection—cross-\nreferences payment rates in announcing that it deals with\n“[r]eporting of private sector payment rates for establishment\nof medicare payment rates.” See id. § 1395m-1(a). The district\ncourt concluded that the language of the jurisdiction-stripping\nprovision combined with the header of subsection (a) meant\nthat data collection was “part and parcel of ‘the establishment\nof payment amounts under this section,’ which Congress\nshielded from judicial review.” Am. Clinical Lab. Ass’n, 334\nF. Supp. 3d at 307.\n\n That conclusion is plausible, but the text does not compel\nit. Several features of the statute suggest that Congress meant\nto bar challenges to the “establishment of payment amounts”\nbut not to prevent review of the rule delineating the data\ncollection practices that precede and inform the setting of those\namounts. The jurisdiction-stripping provision itself bars\nreview “under section 1395ff of this title, section 1395oo of\nthis title, or otherwise.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(h)(1). The two\ncross-referenced sections cover administrative appeals by\npatients or providers who wish to contest a coverage\ndetermination or reimbursement amount. See 42 U.S.C.\n§§ 1395oo, 1395ff. That suggests Congress intended to\npreclude review of the amounts of money paid in the ultimate\nreimbursement decisions. Additionally, subsection (a)’s\nreference to reporting private sector data for the establishment\nof payment amounts suggests that the two are not one and the\n\f 15\nsame, but rather that collecting data from the private sector is a\nseparate statutory duty preceding the establishment of\nMedicare payment rates. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a). Indeed,\nthe final rule on data collection is not an “establishment of\npayment amounts,” but a blueprint for which laboratories must\nreport private payor data to the Secretary, how they must do so,\nand what consequences they face for noncompliance. 81 Fed.\nReg. at 41,037.\n\n The structure of PAMA bespeaks the separation between\ndata collection and pricing. In subsections (b), (c), and (d) on\nexisting, new, and new advanced diagnostic laboratory\nservices, Congress explained that it was directing the Secretary\nhenceforth to calculate “weighted median” market-based\nprices for existing services and to “gapfill” and consult an\nexpert panel to determine prices for new and new advanced\nservices. In a separate provision, Congress detailed the\nframework for data collection. Compare 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-\n1(b)-(d) (establishing processes for determining Medicare\nrates), with id. § 1395m-1(a) (establishing processes for\ncollecting private-payor data). Whereas the rate-setting\nprovisions affect reimbursements for Medicare services, the\ndata-collection part of the statute imposes new obligations on\nprivate parties (applicable laboratories). The latter requires\nreporting of confidential data about private market rates—data\nnot otherwise used in any government program—so that the\nSecretary may analyze it to formulate Medicare rates. Id.\n§ 1395m-1(a). The Secretary is required to “establish through\nnotice and comment rulemaking parameters for data collection\nunder this subsection.” Id. § 1395m-1(a)(12). An applicable\nlab’s failure to provide the specified information exposes it to\nsignificant monetary penalties. Id. § 1395m-1(a)(9).\n\n Textual and structural analysis of jurisdiction-stripping\nprovisions in other statutes supports the Secretary’s position\n\f 16\nthat Congress did not bar review of PAMA’s entire process for\ncollecting data on private-payor rates. See Bowen, 476 U.S. at\n675-76 (holding that the provision limiting review of amounts\nof benefit payments under the Medicare program did not bar\nreview of the method by which such amounts were computed).\nIn Texas Alliance for Home Care Services v. Sebelius, for\nexample, we concluded that a provision’s “broad and\nunequivocally preclusive language” barring review of “the\nawarding of contracts” under Medicare also barred review of\nthe “applicable financial standards” that medical equipment\nsuppliers must meet in order to be eligible for those contracts.\n681 F.3d 402, 409-11 & n.9 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In that case, the\nchallenged “applicable financial standards” were listed in the\nstatute itself as a “[c]ondition[] for awarding contract[s].” 42\nU.S.C. § 1395w-3(b). In other words, the statutory text made\nclear that the challenged action (defining applicable financial\nstandards) was encompassed within the terms of unreviewable\naction (awarding contracts). The same was true in Mercy\nHospital, Inc. v. Azar, where we held that a statute barring\njudicial review of “prospective payment rates” covered a\nchallenge to the formula the Secretary used to calculate those\nrates. 891 F.3d 1062, 1067 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Through internal\ncross-references, the “language of the statute tie[d] together the\nprospective payment rate and the statutory adjustments” used\nto calculate that rate. Id.\n\n Unlike the provisions at issue in Texas Alliance and Mercy\nHospital, the statutory text here does not subsume the data\ncollection process within the establishment of payment\namounts. On the contrary, Congress set out the process for data\ncollection in a separate and distinct subsection and with its own\nset of rules. Congress also required that the parameters for that\ndata collection be established through notice and comment\nrulemaking. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a)(12). Neither of the\nstatutes at issue in Texas Alliance or Mercy Hospital had\n\f 17\nexplicit notice and comment requirements. And, as our\nprecedent makes clear, part of the purpose of notice and\ncomment rulemaking is to ensure the parties develop a record\nfor judicial review. See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of\nAm. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 407 F.3d 1250, 1259\n(D.C. Cir. 2005) (“[Rulemaking n]otice requirements are\ndesigned . . . to give affected parties an opportunity to develop\nevidence in the record to support their objections to the rule and\nthereby enhance the quality of judicial review.”).\n\n Because the gathering of data under PAMA is not\n“inextricably intertwined” with the establishment of payment\nrates, we lack a basis on which to infer that Congress, in\neliminating jurisdiction over the latter, clearly meant also to bar\nreview of the former. Cf. Florida Health Scis. Ctr., Inc. v.\nSec’y of Health & Human Servs., 830 F.3d 515, 521 (D.C. Cir.\n2016). We held that we lacked jurisdiction in Florida Health\nfor reasons that appear at first blush to apply here. The statute\nat issue in Florida Health required the Secretary to identify as\nDisproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) entitled to additional\nfederal compensation those hospitals serving high proportions\nof poor patients. When the Affordable Care Act directed that\nDSH status be based largely on the percentage of the nation’s\noverall uncompensated care each hospital provides, the\nSecretary chose to estimate that percentage by reference to the\nnumber of days Medicaid and low-income Medicare patients\nspent in a given hospital as a proportion of the national total of\nsuch patients’ hospital days. Id. at 517; see 42 U.S.C.\n§ 1395ww(r)(2)(C). In other words, the Secretary used a\nhospital’s national share of Medicaid and low-income\nMedicare patient care as a proxy for its share of uncompensated\ncare. See Florida Health, 830 F.3d at 517. The Secretary did\nso because research supported the correlation between a\nhospital’s national shares of uninsured patients and its poor-\ninsured, and the proxy data was already readily available and\n\f 18\nsubject to audit. Id. The statute expressly precluded review of\nthe Secretary’s uncompensated care estimates, see id.\n§ 1395ww(r)(3)(A), but plaintiffs sought review of those\nestimates anyway by challenging the accuracy of the Medicaid\ndata on which they were based, Florida Health, 830 F.3d at\n518. We held that the statutory bar on the Secretary’s\n“estimate” of how much uncompensated care a hospital\nprovided also barred review of the proxy data on which the\nSecretary relied. Id. at 518-19. We “could not review a\ndecision that was ‘indispensable’ or ‘integral’ to, or\n‘inextricably intertwined,’ with the unreviewable agency\naction.” Id. at 519 (quoting Texas Alliance, 681 F.3d at 409-\n11).\n\n Important distinctions between the issues in this case and\nFlorida Health show that the data collection process at issue\nhere is not “inextricably intertwined” with the unreviewable\nestablishment of payment amounts. Most importantly, unlike\nPAMA, the statute in Florida Health did not have a separate\ndata-collection provision imposing new obligations on private\nparties nor did it have a notice and comment requirement. It\nsimply directed the Secretary to estimate the amount of\nuncompensated services using “appropriate data,” including\ndata that the Secretary may “determine[]” serves as an adequate\nproxy for uncompensated care rates. 42 U.S.C.\n§ 1395ww(r)(2)(C). The statute’s text and structure made clear\nthat choosing which data to use was part of the Secretary’s\nunreviewable obligation to estimate uncompensated care rates.\nFlorida Health, 830 F.3d at 517, 519.\n\n PAMA’s data collection provision, on the other hand, is\ndistinct from its rate-estimation provisions. For data collection,\nthe statute obligates clinical laboratories that participate in the\nMedicare program to report distinct reimbursement rates they\nreceive from private insurers and requires the Secretary to\n\f 19\nestablish the rules governing that reporting through notice and\ncomment rulemaking. To be sure, the results of that data\ncollection process are used to establish Medicare payment\namounts. But the statute’s bifurcated structure supports\nACLA’s view that the two provisions and the processes they\nrequire are distinct. This case differs from DCH Regional\nMedical Center v. Azar, 925 F.3d 503 (D.C. Cir. 2019), for\nsimilar reasons. We held there that a “methodology” used to\ngenerate uncompensated care estimates under the same statute\nat issue in Florida Health was itself unreviewable because\nthere was “no textual basis for separating estimates from their\nunderlying methodology,” id. at 507; the data-collection\nprovision of PAMA, in contrast, is separate from the provisions\nestablishing payment amounts. That the statutory scheme\nrequires private laboratories to report non-Medicare and\ngenerally confidential business information (private market\nrates) to the government on pain of monetary penalties further\nstands this statutory scheme in sharp contrast to others where\nthe challenged action was found to be intertwined with other\nagency actions regarding which Congress had barred judicial\nreview.\n\n The government argues that it would make scant sense for\nCongress to have barred review only of “basic math” while\n“permitting review of every discretionary step that preceded\nthat math.” Appellee Br. 33. But establishing payment\namounts sometimes involves more than rote math. For\nestablished laboratory services, the Secretary must array\nprivate payor data from thousands of laboratories and calculate\na weighted median for each separate laboratory service. 42\nU.S.C. § 1395m-1(b)(2). For new tests, regarding which\nprivate payor data does not yet exist, the Secretary must\nconsider more complicated criteria and consult an expert panel.\nSee id. § 1395m-1(c)-(d), (f). That process is a good deal more\ncomplex and discretionary than rote math.\n\f 20\n In view of PAMA’s text, its structure, and the distinct\nnature of the processes of data collection and establishment of\npayment rates, we cannot conclude that the bar against\nreviewing the “establishment of payment amounts” also\nprevents our review of the rule setting up a new and detailed\nprocess for collecting data on market rates that private insurers\npay to laboratories. Because the statute is “reasonably\nsusceptible” to this interpretation, we hold that it does not bar\njudicial review of the Secretary’s rule establishing the\nparameters of data collection under 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a).\nGutierrez de Martinez, 515 U.S. at 434.\n\n IV. Ultra Vires\n\n ACLA also argues that, even if the jurisdictional limitation\nof Section 1395m-1(h) applies, we should nonetheless review\nthe Secretary’s final rule because it “exceeds his statutory\nauthority and is ultra vires.” Appellant’s Br. 61. Although we\nhold that the statute itself does not bar review, we nonetheless\nconsider ACLA’s ultra vires argument because, if valid, it\nwould not just open the courthouse door, but invalidate the rule\nand obviate any need to remand to the district court for\nconsideration of the arbitrary-and-capricious challenge.\n\n If an agency exceeds “its statutory bounds, judicial review\nremains available” to curb the rogue action. SAS Inst., Inc. v.\nIancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359 (2018). To challenge agency\naction on the ground that it is ultra vires, ACLA must show a\n“patent violation of agency authority.” Indep. Cosmetic Mfrs.\n& Distribs., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 574\nF.2d 553, 555 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Ultra vires review “is intended\nto be of extremely limited scope,” and it “represents a more\ndifficult course . . . than would review under the APA.”\nTrudeau v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 456 F.3d 178, 190 (D.C. Cir.\n2006) (internal quotations omitted).\n\f 21\n Here, the statute says that applicable laboratory “means a\nlaboratory that, with respect to its revenues under this\nsubchapter, a majority of such revenues are from” the PFS and\nCLFS. 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a)(2) (emphasis added). ACLA\nargues that choosing to compare a laboratory’s total revenues\nfrom the PFS and CLFS against the “total Medicare revenues\nof any entity with an NPI (of which the laboratory is often only\none component),” Appellant’s Br. 64, violates the statute’s\ncommand that the reporting unit be the laboratory rather than a\nbroader entity. Again, the reporting unit matters because\ncomparing a hospital laboratory’s reimbursements from PFS\nand CLFS to the entire hospital’s Medicare revenue (as\nopposed to just the hospital laboratory’s Medicare revenue)\nmeans that a hospital laboratory without its own, laboratory-\nspecific NPI will not qualify as an applicable laboratory under\nthe statute.\n\n HHS did not clearly step so far outside the scope of the\ntask that Congress gave it as to have acted ultra vires. PAMA\ndoes not define the term “laboratory,” and the Secretary’s\ncharge was to operationalize that important term despite its\nambiguity. After incorporating industry comments into the\nfinal rule, the Secretary chose to identify laboratories by their\nNPI numbers. See J.A. 563-64 (Florida Hospital Association\nrecommending HHS define applicable laboratory at the NPI\nlevel rather than the TIN level); compare 80 Fed. Reg. at\n59,387 (proposing use of TIN numbers), with 81 Fed. Reg. at\n41,037 (deciding to use NPI numbers). Appellant’s objection\nto the Secretary’s efforts, even if meritorious, does not\nestablish that the Secretary acted ultra vires. We leave to the\ndistrict court on remand to address in the first instance the\nmerits of petitioner’s arbitrary-and-capricious challenge.\n\f 22\n * * *\n\n For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the district\ncourt’s holding on subject matter jurisdiction and remand for\nfurther proceedings consistent with this opinion.\n\n So ordered.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: AMERICAN CLINICAL LABORATORY ASSOCIATION, Appellant v. Alex Michael AZAR, II, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-30\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued April 23, 2019 Decided July 30, 2019\\n\\n No. 18-5312\\n\\n AMERICAN CLINICAL LABORATORY ASSOCIATION,\\n APPELLANT\\n\\n v.\\n\\n ALEX MICHAEL AZAR, II, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS\\n SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,\\n APPELLEE\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the District of Columbia\\n (No. 1:17-cv-02645)\\n\\n\\n Ashley C. Parrish argued the cause for appellant. With\\nhim on the briefs were Mark D. Polston, Elizabeth N. Swayne,\\nand Amelia G. Yowell.\\n\\n R. Scott Caulkins and Jeffrey J. Sherrin were on the brief\\nfor amicus curiae American Association of Bioanalysts in\\nsupport of plaintiffs-appellant.\\n\\n David McAloon was on the brief for amici curiae The\\nCollege of American Pathologists, et al. in support of appellant.\\n\\n Dennis Fan, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued\\nthe cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Abby C.\\n\\f 2\\nWright, Attorney, Robert P. Charrow, General Counsel, U.S.\\nDepartment of Health & Human Services, Janice L. Hoffman,\\nAssociate General Counsel, Susan Maxson Lyons, Deputy\\nAssociate General Counsel, and Debra M. Laboschin,\\nAttorney. Alisa B. Klein, Attorney U.S. Department of Justice,\\nentered an appearance.\\n\\n Before: GRIFFITH, MILLETT and PILLARD, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge PILLARD.\\n\\n PILLARD, Circuit Judge: The Protecting Access to\\nMedicare Act (PAMA, or the Act) seeks to align Medicare\\nreimbursement rates for laboratory tests with rates paid for\\nsuch tests in the private market. To enable the Secretary of\\nHealth and Human Services (HHS) to ascertain the private\\nmarket’s reimbursement rates, PAMA requires “applicable\\nlaboratories” to report private payor data to the Secretary that\\nthe Medicare program then uses to set new, presumably lower,\\nMedicare reimbursement rates. The Secretary must implement\\nthe statute’s definition of “applicable laboratory” before it can\\nbe used to collect the requisite data. In 2016, the Secretary\\nissued a final rule doing so, and plaintiff American Clinical\\nLaboratory Association (ACLA) filed suit claiming the rule\\nunlawfully excluded most hospital laboratories from the Act’s\\nreporting requirements.\\n\\n Based on PAMA’s prohibition of judicial review of “the\\nestablishment of payment amounts,” the district court\\ndismissed ACLA’s complaint for lack of subject matter\\njurisdiction. We conclude that the statutory provision stripping\\njurisdiction to review payment amounts does not cover the\\nstatute’s data-collection provision. We also reject ACLA’s\\nclaim that the Secretary’s rule was ultra vires. We thus reverse\\n\\f 3\\nand remand to the district court to consider in the first instance\\nwhether the rule comports with the APA.\\n\\n I. Background\\n\\n The federal Medicare program, which pays for healthcare\\nfor elderly and disabled individuals, see 42 U.S.C. § 1395 et\\nseq., is the nation’s largest purchaser of clinical laboratory\\nservices. In 2013, the HHS Office of Inspector General\\nconcluded that Medicare was paying 18 to 30 percent more\\nthan private insurance companies for a range of common\\nlaboratory tests. Congress responded by enacting the\\nProtecting Access to Medicare Act, Pub. L. No. 113-93, 128\\nStat. 1040 (2014). A central goal of the Act is to set Medicare\\nreimbursement rates for laboratory tests at approximately the\\nprice private insurers pay for the same tests. See 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 1395m-1(b)(1)(A).\\n\\n To inform the Secretary’s rate setting, the statute requires\\n“applicable laborator[ies]” within the private sector to report\\n“private payor” data—both the price and volume of laboratory\\ntests—to HHS every three years. Id. § 1395m-1(a). The statute\\ndefines the term “private payor” as a “health insurance issuer\\nand a group health plan,” a “Medicare Advantage plan,” or a\\n“medicaid managed care organization.” Id. § 1395m-1(a)(8).\\nIt calls on the Secretary to establish parameters for data\\ncollection through notice and comment rulemaking. Id.\\n§ 1395m-1(a)(12). Applicable laboratories that fail to report\\naccurate data face monetary penalties of up to $10,000 per day.\\nId. § 1395m-1(a)(9).\\n\\n In separate provisions, the statute explains how the\\nSecretary is to use private payor data on each laboratory test\\nalready available in the market to calculate a “weighted\\nmedian” rate, which becomes Medicare’s reimbursement rate\\nfor that test. Id. § 1395m-1(b). For new tests that do not have\\n\\f 4\\nprivate payor data, the Secretary is to use a “gapfilling process”\\nand consult with an expert advisory panel to establish the new\\ntest’s Medicare payment rate. Id. §§ 1395m-1(c)-(d), (f).\\nBecause the market-approximating Medicare rates are likely to\\nbe lower than existing Medicare rates, the statute allows for a\\nmulti-year “[p]hase-in” process to transition to the market-\\nbased rates. Id. § 1395m-1(b)(3). Finally, the statute declares\\nthat “[t]here shall be no administrative or judicial review . . . of\\nthe establishment of payment amounts under this section,” id.\\n§ 1395m-1(h)(1), thereby barring otherwise available review\\nby the Departmental Appeals Board and Provider\\nReimbursement Board as well as the federal courts.\\n\\n This appeal is about whether the Secretary’s\\nimplementation of PAMA’s definition of “applicable\\nlaboratories” is subject to review in response to a claim that it\\nunlawfully excludes hospital laboratories—which tend to\\ncharge higher prices than standalone laboratories—from the\\ndataset used to determine new Medicare rates. See Medicare\\nProgram; Medicare Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests\\nPayment System, 81 Fed. Reg. 41,036 (June 23, 2016).\\nLaboratory tests are available to the public through three main\\ntypes of laboratories: physician-office laboratories (which in\\n2015 comprised 17 percent of all labs), independent\\nlaboratories (50 percent of all labs), and hospital laboratories\\n(33 percent of all labs). The statute does not expressly discuss\\nthose distinct types of institutional settings, instead generally\\ndefining an applicable laboratory as “a laboratory that, with\\nrespect to its revenues under this subchapter, a majority of such\\nrevenues are from this section, section 1395l(h) of this title, or\\nsection 1395w-4 of this title.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a)(2). In\\nplain terms, that definition refers to a laboratory that receives\\nmost of its overall Medicare funding from the Physician Fee\\nSchedule (PFS) or the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule\\n(CLFS). Those Medicare fee schedules are typically used to\\n\\f 5\\npay for laboratory services provided by independent\\nlaboratories and physician-office laboratories. We refer to this\\npart of the statute’s definition of applicable labs as the\\nmajority-payments test. 1\\n\\n Applying the majority-payments test to hospital\\nlaboratories has proved more complicated than for independent\\nlaboratories and physician-office laboratories. Medicare\\nreimburses laboratory services provided by hospital\\nlaboratories in a range of different ways, and it is not obvious\\nwhich, if any, are relevant to PAMA. When hospital\\nlaboratories serve admitted inpatients and registered\\noutpatients, Medicare does not use the PFS or CLFS, but pays\\nfor those services through distinct fee schedules that bundle the\\nlaboratory testing with other hospital services. See Medicare\\nProgram; Medicare Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests\\nPayment System, 80 Fed. Reg. 59,386, 59,393 (Oct. 1, 2015).\\nA hospital laboratory serving only inpatients and outpatients\\naccordingly is not an applicable laboratory under PAMA\\nbecause it receives no Medicare reimbursements from the\\napplicable fee schedules.\\n\\n However, some hospitals also provide “outreach\\nservices”—that is, laboratory services for people who are\\nneither inpatients nor outpatients. Hospitals’ outreach services\\nmay compete for such business with independent laboratories,\\nand Medicare reimburses hospitals for those services under the\\n\\n1\\n The statute authorizes the Secretary to establish a “low volume or\\nlow expenditure threshold” to exclude especially small laboratories.\\n42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a)(2). The Secretary has set the low\\nexpenditure threshold at $12,500, meaning that labs receiving less\\nthan $12,500 of Medicare revenue from the CLFS and PFS are\\nexempt from reporting requirements. ACLA does not challenge that\\nprovision, which exempts approximately 95 percent of physician-\\noffice laboratories.\\n\\f 6\\nPFS and CLFS. Considered as a freestanding entity, a hospital\\nlaboratory that offered outreach services could fit the statutory\\ndefinition of an applicable laboratory if it received most of its\\nMedicare revenue from the PFS and CLFS.\\n\\n In October 2015, the Secretary proposed a rule to\\nimplement the data reporting provision of PAMA. See 80 Fed.\\nReg. at 59,386. The Secretary acknowledged that it was\\n“important” to “define laboratory broadly enough to\\nencompass every laboratory type that is subject to” the\\napplicable fee schedules, id. at 59,391, so proposed to include\\nany “entity that includes a laboratory” as well as any “entity\\nthat itself is a laboratory,” id. at 59,392. But to make the\\nthreshold identification of the relevant entity to be scrutinized\\nunder the statutory majority-payments test, the proposed rule\\ndefined “entity” as the institutional unit associated with a\\ndistinct taxpayer identification number (TIN). Id. at 59,387. A\\nTIN is the institutional identifier Medicare service providers\\nuse to report to the IRS tax-related information about all types\\nof Medicare payments. Id. at 59,421.\\n\\n The practical effect of applying the majority-payments test\\nto an entity defined by its TIN would be that essentially no\\nhospital laboratory could qualify as an applicable laboratory.\\nSee id. at 59,393. An independent laboratory that takes\\nMedicare payments has a TIN, but so does an entire hospital\\nthat takes Medicare payments. Identifying the relevant entity\\nat the level of the TIN would mean that, for purposes of the\\nmajority-payments test, Medicare reimbursements to a hospital\\nlab under the PFS and CLFS would be compared to the entire\\nhospital’s Medicare revenue rather than to its laboratory’s\\nMedicare revenue. Hospitals, in contrast to stand-alone\\nlaboratories, receive Medicare reimbursements for a wide\\nrange of services—everything from surgeries to room and\\nboard—so even if the hospital laboratory received the majority\\n\\f 7\\nof its Medicare revenue from the PFS and CLFS, the majority\\nof the hospital’s overall Medicare revenues would not come\\nfrom those fee schedules.\\n\\n Insofar as hospitals’ Medicare revenue associated with\\nthose fee schedules is dwarfed by their other types of Medicare\\nrevenue, reliance on the TIN to define the relevant entity would\\nexclude all hospital-based laboratories from the “applicable\\nlaboratories” reporting requirement at the threshold, without\\nsubjecting the laboratories as such to the majority-payments\\ntest. The Secretary anticipated that consequence, explaining:\\n“[W]e believe the statute intends to limit reporting primarily to\\nindependent laboratories and physician offices . . . and not to\\ninclude other entities (such as hospitals, or other health care\\nproviders) that do not receive the majority of their revenues\\nfrom PFS or CLFS services.” Id. at 59,393.\\n\\n Many healthcare entities and other stakeholders opposed\\nthat part of the proposed rule, arguing that reading the statute’s\\ndefinition of applicable laboratory to generally exclude\\nhospital laboratories violated PAMA. See, e.g., 81 Fed. Reg.\\nat 41,045. Why did that matter? A major laboratory services\\nprovider asserted that hospital laboratories receive 1.5 to 4\\ntimes higher private payor reimbursement rates than\\nindependent laboratories for the same test. (The record does\\nnot specify whether that estimate isolated reimbursement\\npursuant to the PFS or CLFS schedules, or included laboratory\\ntests provided—presumably at greater cost—as part of\\ninpatient and outpatient services). The American Hospital\\nAssociation advocated in favor of requiring hospital\\nlaboratories to report their rate data, believing that would\\n“generally increase the weighted median,” and make the new\\nMedicare rates “more representative of overall market rates.”\\nJoint Appendix (J.A.) 595 (letter to Acting Administrator of\\nCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Services).\\n\\f 8\\n Commenters advocated identifying entities by their\\nNational Provider Identifier (NPI) numbers rather than their\\nTIN. Healthcare providers use NPI numbers to bill Medicare.\\nBecause more hospital laboratories have NPI numbers distinct\\nfrom those of their associated hospitals, they reasoned,\\nidentifying the relevant entity at the NPI level would mean\\nhospital laboratories with their own NPI numbers would be\\nevaluated for whether they, considered separately, meet the\\nmajority-payments test defining “applicable laboratories.”\\n\\n In the final rule issued in June 2016, the Secretary accepted\\nthat suggestion and defined applicable laboratories at the NPI\\nlevel rather than the TIN level. 2 81 Fed. Reg. at 41,037. The\\nfinal rule reiterated the Secretary’s reading of the statute as\\nexcluding the majority of hospital laboratories because those\\nlaboratories receive most of their Medicare revenue from\\nbundled payments for inpatients and outpatients rather than\\nfrom the CLFS or PFS. Id. at 41,045. However, the Secretary\\n“agree[d] with commenters” that hospital outreach\\nlaboratories—i.e., “laboratories that furnish laboratory tests for\\npatients that are not admitted hospital inpatients or registered\\noutpatients of the hospital” and that “are enrolled in Medicare\\nseparately from the hospital of which they are a part”—“should\\nbe accounted for” in the new payment rates. Id.\\n\\n As it turns out, however, NPIs suffer from virtually the\\nsame flaw as TINs because “[v]ery few hospitals have\\nlaboratory-specific NPIs, and they generally submit claims\\nunder the hospital’s NPI.” J.A. 271 (letter from ACLA to\\nDepartment of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector\\n\\n2\\n The rule rejected commenters’ alternative suggestion that entities\\nbe identified by their Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments\\n(CLIA) certificate, which is used to certify that a laboratory meets\\nhealth and safety regulations, because that certificate is not\\nassociated with Medicare billing. 81 Fed. Reg. at 41,045-46.\\n\\f 9\\nGeneral). In 2016, approximately 2,000 out of 260,000 total\\nlaboratories nationwide (0.7 percent) reported data to the\\nSecretary. Out of the approximately 7,000 hospital laboratories\\nin the United States, only 21 (0.3 percent) reported data,\\ncomprising about one percent of all the reporting labs. Much\\nof the data collected by the Secretary came from the country’s\\ntwo largest independent laboratories—Quest and Labcorp—\\nwhich have lower cost structures than other laboratories. See\\nJ.A. 70-71 (Declaration from Senior Vice President of Quest\\nDiagnostics). According to ACLA, that skewed the Medicare\\nreimbursement rates low. The government, for its part,\\nmaintains that the data used to calculate the 2018 rates “was\\nsufficient and resulted in accurate weighted medians of private\\npayor rates.” See Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment\\nPolicies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other\\nRevisions, 83 Fed. Reg. 59,452, 59,672 (Nov. 23, 2018).\\n\\n In 2018, the Secretary finalized another rule—not at issue\\nhere—that amended the implementation of “applicable\\nlaboratories” in an effort to include more hospital-based\\noutreach laboratory services in the next set of data. Id. at\\n59,452. As HHS explained, “we are confident that our current\\npolicy supports our collecting sufficient applicable information\\n. . . and that we received sufficient and reliable applicable\\ninformation with which we set [2018 rates],” but “we continue\\nto consider refinements to our policies that could lead to\\nincluding even more applicable information for the next data\\nreporting period.” Id. at 59,672. The 2018 rule requires\\nlaboratories providing outreach services to report data using the\\nCMS–1450 14x TOB—a billing form used only by hospital\\noutreach laboratories. Id. at 59,673-75. The new rule, in effect,\\ncategorizes as an applicable laboratory that portion of a\\nhospital laboratory that provides outreach services—even if\\nthose services comprise only a minority of the laboratory’s\\noverall services. See id. at 59,673 (“[W]e believe that if we\\n\\f 10\\nwere to utilize such an approach in defining applicable\\nlaboratory, all hospital outreach laboratories would meet the\\nmajority of Medicare revenues threshold . . .”). Notably, this\\napproach was not encompassed by the relief that ACLA seeks\\nhere. ACLA is emphatic that the statute requires the Secretary\\nto use the hospital laboratory as the denominator in the\\nmajority-payments test. See Appellant’s Br. 65. The Secretary\\nwill use the new data about hospital laboratories’ outreach\\nservices in a revised fee schedule as of January 1, 2021. 80\\nFed. Reg. at 59,667.\\n\\n Plaintiff in this case, American Clinical Laboratory\\nAssociation, is a trade association of laboratories. It submitted\\ncomments to the Secretary both before the 2015 proposed rule\\nand before the 2016 final rule. See J.A. 82. ACLA brought\\nsuit in 2017 to challenge the 2016 rule’s implementation of\\napplicable laboratory as contrary to the statute and arbitrary\\nand capricious in violation of the APA. The district court\\ndismissed for want of jurisdiction. Am. Clinical Lab. Ass’n v.\\nAzar, 334 F. Supp. 3d 301, 309 (D.D.C. 2018). This Court\\nreviews de novo a district court’s legal determination as to\\nsubject matter jurisdiction. See Piersall v. Winter, 435 F.3d\\n319, 321 (D.C. Cir. 2006).\\n\\n II. Standing\\n\\n Although the Secretary scarcely challenges standing on\\nappeal, we have an independent obligation to assure ourselves\\nthat ACLA has standing to challenge the final rule. Steel Co.\\nv. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). The\\n“constitutional minimum” of standing requires that a plaintiff\\nhave suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly\\ntraceable to the challenged conduct and is likely to be redressed\\nby a favorable decision. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504\\nU.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). In order to have associational\\n\\f 11\\nstanding, ACLA must demonstrate that “at least one of [its]\\nmembers satisfies” this test. See Am. Library Ass’n v. FCC,\\n401 F.3d 489, 492 (D.C. Cir. 2005). At the motion to dismiss\\nstage, “general factual allegations of injury resulting from the\\ndefendant’s conduct may suffice” to establish standing. Lujan,\\n504 U.S. at 561. We hold that ACLA meets those familiar\\nrequirements.\\n\\n First, ACLA has established injury in fact. By adopting an\\nimpermissible definition of “applicable laboratories” that\\nexcludes virtually all hospital laboratories, ACLA asserts that\\nthe rule harms its members in various ways. First, it\\ndisproportionately burdens independent laboratories with the\\ncost of data-production obligations not borne by its hospital-\\nbased competitor laboratories. ACLA submitted a declaration\\nfrom the Senior Vice President of Quest Diagnostics, an ACLA\\nmember, asserting that “laboratories that reported private payor\\ninformation were significantly disadvantaged as compared to\\nother laboratories that, while required to report under PAMA,\\nwere excused from that obligation by the Secretary.” J.A. 73.\\nSecond, it artificially depresses the reimbursement rates by\\nexcluding data from a portion of the market that receives\\nhigher-than-average Medicare reimbursements for its\\nlaboratory services. An affidavit from the Chief Executive\\nOfficer of Joint Venture Hospital Laboratories, LLC, an ACLA\\nmember, attests that the “elimination of . . . hospital[]\\nlaboratories from the reporting requirements skews the data”\\nthat is used to calculate the weighted median of commercial\\npayor rates and ultimately set the Medicare reimbursement\\nrate. J.A. 61. And, because “hospital laboratories typically\\nreceive higher commercial rates than other types of\\nlaboratories,” the Medicare reimbursement rates are lower than\\nthey would be if the Secretary collected more data from\\nhospital laboratories. Id.; see also U.S. Gov’t Accountability\\nOffice, GAO 19-67, Medicare Laboratory Tests;\\n\\f 12\\nImplementation of New Rates May Lead to Billions in Excess\\nPayment 12 (2018), https://www.gao.gov/assets/\\n700/695756.pdf (hospital laboratories “typically receive\\nrelatively higher private-payer rates . . . by leveraging the\\nmarket power of their affiliated hospital when negotiating rates\\nwith private payers.”). ACLA has adequately shown that at\\nleast one of its members is reimbursed by Medicare at a rate\\nlower than it would be if we were to rule in ACLA’s favor and\\ninvalidate the challenged limitation in the definition of\\n“applicable laboratory.” That establishes injury in fact.\\n\\n As for causation and redressability, ACLA has met its\\nburden at this stage. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. According to\\nthe Joint Venture Hospital Laboratories affidavit, excluding\\ndata from hospital laboratories “significantly depress[es]” the\\nweighted median payment rates that are used to generate the\\nnew Medicare fee schedule. J.A. 62. Another declaration, by\\nthe President of Aculabs, Inc. (also a member of ACLA),\\nattests: “If the Secretary’s failure to implement Congress’s\\ndirectives is not corrected, the impact on Aculabs’ business will\\nbe severe” because Aculabs “will not receive Medicare-derived\\nreimbursement sufficient to cover its costs.” J.A. 49.\\nRequiring the Secretary to collect more fully representative\\nmarket data and use it to calculate a new weighted median\\nappears sufficiently likely to increase Medicare reimbursement\\nrates to establish redressability at this stage.\\n\\n The Secretary briefly protests that ACLA cannot claim\\nlower repayment rates as an injury for standing purposes\\nbecause the statute expressly prohibits challenging the rates.\\nSee Appellee’s Br. 25-26. That argument conflates two issues.\\nIt is true that ACLA cannot challenge the rates themselves\\nunder the statute’s jurisdiction-stripping provision. See 42\\nU.S.C. § 1395m-1(h)(1). But that does mean the rates cannot\\nbe the source of ACLA’s members’ injury in a challenge to the\\n\\f 13\\ndata-collection rule. What matters is that ACLA’s challenge\\n(here, to the definition of applicable laboratory for purposes of\\ndata collection) is sufficiently linked to its asserted injury\\n(lower reimbursement rates). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d\\n895, 899 (D.C. Cir. 2002). We assess in the next section the\\ndistinct issue whether ACLA’s challenge is an impermissible\\nback-door effort to challenge reimbursement rates in\\ncircumvention of the statutory bar.\\n\\n III. Jurisdiction Stripping\\n\\n The primary question on appeal is whether PAMA’s\\nprovision eliminating administrative and judicial review of the\\n“establishment of payment amounts,” 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-\\n1(h)(1), bars our review of the rule the Secretary promulgated\\nto implement the statute’s data-collection provision, 81 Fed.\\nReg. 41,036. When deciding whether a statute bars judicial\\nreview, we begin with “the strong presumption that Congress\\nintends judicial review of administrative action.” Smith v.\\nBerryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765, 1776 (2019) (quoting Bowen v.\\nMich. Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670 (1986)).\\nEven where, as here, a statutory provision expressly prohibits\\njudicial review, the presumption applies to dictate that such a\\nprovision be read narrowly. See Dart v. United States, 848\\nF.2d 217, 221 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “When a statute is ‘reasonably\\nsusceptible to divergent interpretation, we adopt the reading\\nthat accords with traditional understandings and basic\\nprinciples: that executive determinations generally are subject\\nto judicial review.’” Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 251\\n(2010) (quoting Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S.\\n417, 434 (1995)). “Whether and to what extent a particular\\nstatute precludes judicial review is determined not only from\\nits express language, but also from the structure of the statutory\\nscheme, its objectives, its legislative history, and the nature of\\n\\f 14\\nthe administrative action involved.” Block v. Cmty. Nutrition\\nInst., 467 U.S. 340, 345 (1984).\\n\\n We start with the text: “There shall be no administrative\\nor judicial review under section 1395ff of this title, section\\n1395oo of this title, or otherwise, of the establishment of\\npayment amounts under this section.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-\\n1(h)(1). The header of subsection (a) of the statute—the part\\nthat defines the parameters for data collection—cross-\\nreferences payment rates in announcing that it deals with\\n“[r]eporting of private sector payment rates for establishment\\nof medicare payment rates.” See id. § 1395m-1(a). The district\\ncourt concluded that the language of the jurisdiction-stripping\\nprovision combined with the header of subsection (a) meant\\nthat data collection was “part and parcel of ‘the establishment\\nof payment amounts under this section,’ which Congress\\nshielded from judicial review.” Am. Clinical Lab. Ass’n, 334\\nF. Supp. 3d at 307.\\n\\n That conclusion is plausible, but the text does not compel\\nit. Several features of the statute suggest that Congress meant\\nto bar challenges to the “establishment of payment amounts”\\nbut not to prevent review of the rule delineating the data\\ncollection practices that precede and inform the setting of those\\namounts. The jurisdiction-stripping provision itself bars\\nreview “under section 1395ff of this title, section 1395oo of\\nthis title, or otherwise.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(h)(1). The two\\ncross-referenced sections cover administrative appeals by\\npatients or providers who wish to contest a coverage\\ndetermination or reimbursement amount. See 42 U.S.C.\\n§§ 1395oo, 1395ff. That suggests Congress intended to\\npreclude review of the amounts of money paid in the ultimate\\nreimbursement decisions. Additionally, subsection (a)’s\\nreference to reporting private sector data for the establishment\\nof payment amounts suggests that the two are not one and the\\n\\f 15\\nsame, but rather that collecting data from the private sector is a\\nseparate statutory duty preceding the establishment of\\nMedicare payment rates. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a). Indeed,\\nthe final rule on data collection is not an “establishment of\\npayment amounts,” but a blueprint for which laboratories must\\nreport private payor data to the Secretary, how they must do so,\\nand what consequences they face for noncompliance. 81 Fed.\\nReg. at 41,037.\\n\\n The structure of PAMA bespeaks the separation between\\ndata collection and pricing. In subsections (b), (c), and (d) on\\nexisting, new, and new advanced diagnostic laboratory\\nservices, Congress explained that it was directing the Secretary\\nhenceforth to calculate “weighted median” market-based\\nprices for existing services and to “gapfill” and consult an\\nexpert panel to determine prices for new and new advanced\\nservices. In a separate provision, Congress detailed the\\nframework for data collection. Compare 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-\\n1(b)-(d) (establishing processes for determining Medicare\\nrates), with id. § 1395m-1(a) (establishing processes for\\ncollecting private-payor data). Whereas the rate-setting\\nprovisions affect reimbursements for Medicare services, the\\ndata-collection part of the statute imposes new obligations on\\nprivate parties (applicable laboratories). The latter requires\\nreporting of confidential data about private market rates—data\\nnot otherwise used in any government program—so that the\\nSecretary may analyze it to formulate Medicare rates. Id.\\n§ 1395m-1(a). The Secretary is required to “establish through\\nnotice and comment rulemaking parameters for data collection\\nunder this subsection.” Id. § 1395m-1(a)(12). An applicable\\nlab’s failure to provide the specified information exposes it to\\nsignificant monetary penalties. Id. § 1395m-1(a)(9).\\n\\n Textual and structural analysis of jurisdiction-stripping\\nprovisions in other statutes supports the Secretary’s position\\n\\f 16\\nthat Congress did not bar review of PAMA’s entire process for\\ncollecting data on private-payor rates. See Bowen, 476 U.S. at\\n675-76 (holding that the provision limiting review of amounts\\nof benefit payments under the Medicare program did not bar\\nreview of the method by which such amounts were computed).\\nIn Texas Alliance for Home Care Services v. Sebelius, for\\nexample, we concluded that a provision’s “broad and\\nunequivocally preclusive language” barring review of “the\\nawarding of contracts” under Medicare also barred review of\\nthe “applicable financial standards” that medical equipment\\nsuppliers must meet in order to be eligible for those contracts.\\n681 F.3d 402, 409-11 & n.9 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In that case, the\\nchallenged “applicable financial standards” were listed in the\\nstatute itself as a “[c]ondition[] for awarding contract[s].” 42\\nU.S.C. § 1395w-3(b). In other words, the statutory text made\\nclear that the challenged action (defining applicable financial\\nstandards) was encompassed within the terms of unreviewable\\naction (awarding contracts). The same was true in Mercy\\nHospital, Inc. v. Azar, where we held that a statute barring\\njudicial review of “prospective payment rates” covered a\\nchallenge to the formula the Secretary used to calculate those\\nrates. 891 F.3d 1062, 1067 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Through internal\\ncross-references, the “language of the statute tie[d] together the\\nprospective payment rate and the statutory adjustments” used\\nto calculate that rate. Id.\\n\\n Unlike the provisions at issue in Texas Alliance and Mercy\\nHospital, the statutory text here does not subsume the data\\ncollection process within the establishment of payment\\namounts. On the contrary, Congress set out the process for data\\ncollection in a separate and distinct subsection and with its own\\nset of rules. Congress also required that the parameters for that\\ndata collection be established through notice and comment\\nrulemaking. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a)(12). Neither of the\\nstatutes at issue in Texas Alliance or Mercy Hospital had\\n\\f 17\\nexplicit notice and comment requirements. And, as our\\nprecedent makes clear, part of the purpose of notice and\\ncomment rulemaking is to ensure the parties develop a record\\nfor judicial review. See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of\\nAm. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 407 F.3d 1250, 1259\\n(D.C. Cir. 2005) (“[Rulemaking n]otice requirements are\\ndesigned . . . to give affected parties an opportunity to develop\\nevidence in the record to support their objections to the rule and\\nthereby enhance the quality of judicial review.”).\\n\\n Because the gathering of data under PAMA is not\\n“inextricably intertwined” with the establishment of payment\\nrates, we lack a basis on which to infer that Congress, in\\neliminating jurisdiction over the latter, clearly meant also to bar\\nreview of the former. Cf. Florida Health Scis. Ctr., Inc. v.\\nSec’y of Health & Human Servs., 830 F.3d 515, 521 (D.C. Cir.\\n2016). We held that we lacked jurisdiction in Florida Health\\nfor reasons that appear at first blush to apply here. The statute\\nat issue in Florida Health required the Secretary to identify as\\nDisproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) entitled to additional\\nfederal compensation those hospitals serving high proportions\\nof poor patients. When the Affordable Care Act directed that\\nDSH status be based largely on the percentage of the nation’s\\noverall uncompensated care each hospital provides, the\\nSecretary chose to estimate that percentage by reference to the\\nnumber of days Medicaid and low-income Medicare patients\\nspent in a given hospital as a proportion of the national total of\\nsuch patients’ hospital days. Id. at 517; see 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 1395ww(r)(2)(C). In other words, the Secretary used a\\nhospital’s national share of Medicaid and low-income\\nMedicare patient care as a proxy for its share of uncompensated\\ncare. See Florida Health, 830 F.3d at 517. The Secretary did\\nso because research supported the correlation between a\\nhospital’s national shares of uninsured patients and its poor-\\ninsured, and the proxy data was already readily available and\\n\\f 18\\nsubject to audit. Id. The statute expressly precluded review of\\nthe Secretary’s uncompensated care estimates, see id.\\n§ 1395ww(r)(3)(A), but plaintiffs sought review of those\\nestimates anyway by challenging the accuracy of the Medicaid\\ndata on which they were based, Florida Health, 830 F.3d at\\n518. We held that the statutory bar on the Secretary’s\\n“estimate” of how much uncompensated care a hospital\\nprovided also barred review of the proxy data on which the\\nSecretary relied. Id. at 518-19. We “could not review a\\ndecision that was ‘indispensable’ or ‘integral’ to, or\\n‘inextricably intertwined,’ with the unreviewable agency\\naction.” Id. at 519 (quoting Texas Alliance, 681 F.3d at 409-\\n11).\\n\\n Important distinctions between the issues in this case and\\nFlorida Health show that the data collection process at issue\\nhere is not “inextricably intertwined” with the unreviewable\\nestablishment of payment amounts. Most importantly, unlike\\nPAMA, the statute in Florida Health did not have a separate\\ndata-collection provision imposing new obligations on private\\nparties nor did it have a notice and comment requirement. It\\nsimply directed the Secretary to estimate the amount of\\nuncompensated services using “appropriate data,” including\\ndata that the Secretary may “determine[]” serves as an adequate\\nproxy for uncompensated care rates. 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 1395ww(r)(2)(C). The statute’s text and structure made clear\\nthat choosing which data to use was part of the Secretary’s\\nunreviewable obligation to estimate uncompensated care rates.\\nFlorida Health, 830 F.3d at 517, 519.\\n\\n PAMA’s data collection provision, on the other hand, is\\ndistinct from its rate-estimation provisions. For data collection,\\nthe statute obligates clinical laboratories that participate in the\\nMedicare program to report distinct reimbursement rates they\\nreceive from private insurers and requires the Secretary to\\n\\f 19\\nestablish the rules governing that reporting through notice and\\ncomment rulemaking. To be sure, the results of that data\\ncollection process are used to establish Medicare payment\\namounts. But the statute’s bifurcated structure supports\\nACLA’s view that the two provisions and the processes they\\nrequire are distinct. This case differs from DCH Regional\\nMedical Center v. Azar, 925 F.3d 503 (D.C. Cir. 2019), for\\nsimilar reasons. We held there that a “methodology” used to\\ngenerate uncompensated care estimates under the same statute\\nat issue in Florida Health was itself unreviewable because\\nthere was “no textual basis for separating estimates from their\\nunderlying methodology,” id. at 507; the data-collection\\nprovision of PAMA, in contrast, is separate from the provisions\\nestablishing payment amounts. That the statutory scheme\\nrequires private laboratories to report non-Medicare and\\ngenerally confidential business information (private market\\nrates) to the government on pain of monetary penalties further\\nstands this statutory scheme in sharp contrast to others where\\nthe challenged action was found to be intertwined with other\\nagency actions regarding which Congress had barred judicial\\nreview.\\n\\n The government argues that it would make scant sense for\\nCongress to have barred review only of “basic math” while\\n“permitting review of every discretionary step that preceded\\nthat math.” Appellee Br. 33. But establishing payment\\namounts sometimes involves more than rote math. For\\nestablished laboratory services, the Secretary must array\\nprivate payor data from thousands of laboratories and calculate\\na weighted median for each separate laboratory service. 42\\nU.S.C. § 1395m-1(b)(2). For new tests, regarding which\\nprivate payor data does not yet exist, the Secretary must\\nconsider more complicated criteria and consult an expert panel.\\nSee id. § 1395m-1(c)-(d), (f). That process is a good deal more\\ncomplex and discretionary than rote math.\\n\\f 20\\n In view of PAMA’s text, its structure, and the distinct\\nnature of the processes of data collection and establishment of\\npayment rates, we cannot conclude that the bar against\\nreviewing the “establishment of payment amounts” also\\nprevents our review of the rule setting up a new and detailed\\nprocess for collecting data on market rates that private insurers\\npay to laboratories. Because the statute is “reasonably\\nsusceptible” to this interpretation, we hold that it does not bar\\njudicial review of the Secretary’s rule establishing the\\nparameters of data collection under 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a).\\nGutierrez de Martinez, 515 U.S. at 434.\\n\\n IV. Ultra Vires\\n\\n ACLA also argues that, even if the jurisdictional limitation\\nof Section 1395m-1(h) applies, we should nonetheless review\\nthe Secretary’s final rule because it “exceeds his statutory\\nauthority and is ultra vires.” Appellant’s Br. 61. Although we\\nhold that the statute itself does not bar review, we nonetheless\\nconsider ACLA’s ultra vires argument because, if valid, it\\nwould not just open the courthouse door, but invalidate the rule\\nand obviate any need to remand to the district court for\\nconsideration of the arbitrary-and-capricious challenge.\\n\\n If an agency exceeds “its statutory bounds, judicial review\\nremains available” to curb the rogue action. SAS Inst., Inc. v.\\nIancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359 (2018). To challenge agency\\naction on the ground that it is ultra vires, ACLA must show a\\n“patent violation of agency authority.” Indep. Cosmetic Mfrs.\\n& Distribs., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 574\\nF.2d 553, 555 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Ultra vires review “is intended\\nto be of extremely limited scope,” and it “represents a more\\ndifficult course . . . than would review under the APA.”\\nTrudeau v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 456 F.3d 178, 190 (D.C. Cir.\\n2006) (internal quotations omitted).\\n\\f 21\\n Here, the statute says that applicable laboratory “means a\\nlaboratory that, with respect to its revenues under this\\nsubchapter, a majority of such revenues are from” the PFS and\\nCLFS. 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a)(2) (emphasis added). ACLA\\nargues that choosing to compare a laboratory’s total revenues\\nfrom the PFS and CLFS against the “total Medicare revenues\\nof any entity with an NPI (of which the laboratory is often only\\none component),” Appellant’s Br. 64, violates the statute’s\\ncommand that the reporting unit be the laboratory rather than a\\nbroader entity. Again, the reporting unit matters because\\ncomparing a hospital laboratory’s reimbursements from PFS\\nand CLFS to the entire hospital’s Medicare revenue (as\\nopposed to just the hospital laboratory’s Medicare revenue)\\nmeans that a hospital laboratory without its own, laboratory-\\nspecific NPI will not qualify as an applicable laboratory under\\nthe statute.\\n\\n HHS did not clearly step so far outside the scope of the\\ntask that Congress gave it as to have acted ultra vires. PAMA\\ndoes not define the term “laboratory,” and the Secretary’s\\ncharge was to operationalize that important term despite its\\nambiguity. After incorporating industry comments into the\\nfinal rule, the Secretary chose to identify laboratories by their\\nNPI numbers. See J.A. 563-64 (Florida Hospital Association\\nrecommending HHS define applicable laboratory at the NPI\\nlevel rather than the TIN level); compare 80 Fed. Reg. at\\n59,387 (proposing use of TIN numbers), with 81 Fed. Reg. at\\n41,037 (deciding to use NPI numbers). Appellant’s objection\\nto the Secretary’s efforts, even if meritorious, does not\\nestablish that the Secretary acted ultra vires. We leave to the\\ndistrict court on remand to address in the first instance the\\nmerits of petitioner’s arbitrary-and-capricious challenge.\\n\\f 22\\n * * *\\n\\n For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the district\\ncourt’s holding on subject matter jurisdiction and remand for\\nfurther proceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\n So ordered.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3478,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":8444050,"string":"8,444,050"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"IN RE: SEALED CASE"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"In re Sealed"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-30"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"No. 19-5068; C/w 19-5100, 19-5102, 19-5103"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Millett, Pillard, Tatel\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415488/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MILLETT"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"PILLARD"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"TATEL"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8444050/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: IN RE: SEALED CASE\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-30\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: IN RE: SEALED CASE\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-30\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3479,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":7336585,"string":"7,336,585"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES v. UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Institute for Plicy Studies v. U.S. Cent. Intelligence Agency"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-31"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"Civil Case No. 06-960"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Lamberth\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254505/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"LAMBERTH"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"LAMBERTH"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336585/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES v. UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-31\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES v. UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-31\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3480,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":7336839,"string":"7,336,839"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"ATLAS BREW WORKS, LLC v. William P. BARR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Atlas Brew Works, LLC v. Barr"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-31"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"Case No. 19-cv-79 (CRC)"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Cooper\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254759/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"COOPER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"COOPER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336839/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: ATLAS BREW WORKS, LLC v. William P. BARR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-31\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: ATLAS BREW WORKS, LLC v. William P. BARR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-31\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3481,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":7336846,"string":"7,336,846"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"AMERICAN TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION v. Wilbur ROSS"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Am. Tunaboat Ass'n v. Ross"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-31"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"Case No. 1:19-cv-01011 (TNM)"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"McFadden\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254766/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MCFADDEN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MCFADDEN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336846/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: AMERICAN TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION v. Wilbur ROSS\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-31\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: AMERICAN TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION v. Wilbur ROSS\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-31\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3482,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4636001,"string":"4,636,001"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"QUIEDAN COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Rebar Trade Action Coalition, Defendants-Appellees"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Quiedan Company v. United States"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"2018-1962"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Reyna, Wallach, Taranto\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"TARANTO, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n QUIEDAN COMPANY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n UNITED STATES, REBAR TRADE ACTION\\n COALITION,\\n Defendants-Appellees\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1962\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Court of International\\nTrade in No. 1:16-cv-00275-JCG, Judge Jennifer Choe-\\nGroves.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 2, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n KAVITA MOHAN, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silver-\\nman & Klestadt LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-\\nappellant. Also represented by JORDAN CHARLES KAHN,\\nANDREW THOMAS SCHUTZ; NED H. MARSHAK, New York,\\nNY.\\n\\n TARA K. HOGAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil\\nDivision, United States Department of Justice, Washing-\\nton, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also\\nrepresented by MARGARET JANTZEN, JOSEPH H. HUNT,\\nJEANNE DAVIDSON, LOREN MISHA PREHEIM; CHRISTOPHER\\n\\f2 QUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nHYNER, BRENDAN SASLOW, United States Department of\\nCommerce, Washington, DC.\\n\\n JOHN R. SHANE, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, ar-\\ngued for defendant-appellee Rebar Trade Action Coalition.\\nAlso represented by ALAN H. PRICE, JEFFREY OWEN FRANK,\\nMAUREEN E. THORSON.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before REYNA, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.\\nTARANTO, Circuit Judge.\\n Quiedan Company is an importer of agricultural stakes\\nproduced in the People’s Republic of China. It imports the\\nstakes for use in training grape vines and other plants.\\nEach stake is made of steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar)\\nby cutting rebar to a length of four to five feet followed by\\nsharpening one end to a point to ease driving the stake into\\nthe ground. The United States Department of Commerce\\nconcluded that Quiedan’s stakes are clearly within the\\nscope of an antidumping duty order covering rebar from\\nChina. We see no substantive or procedural error in that\\nruling or in Commerce’s continuation of a suspension of liq-\\nuidation for Quiedan’s stakes. Because the Court of Inter-\\nnational Trade drew the same conclusions, we affirm.\\n I\\n On May 6, 2016, Quiedan applied to Commerce, under\\n19 C.F.R. § 351.225, for a ruling on the scope of an anti-\\ndumping duty order that covers rebar products from\\nChina—an order first issued in 2001 based on the required\\ndeterminations by Commerce and the International Trade\\nCommission. See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Bel-\\narus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People’s Republic of\\nChina, Poland, Republic of Korea and Ukraine, 66 Fed.\\nReg. 46,777 (Sept. 7, 2001) (Rebar Order); see also Steel\\nConcrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia,\\nMoldova, People’s Republic of China, Poland and Ukraine:\\n\\fQUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES 3\\n\\n\\n\\nContinuation of Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 Fed. Reg.\\n44,830 (Aug. 9, 2007) (Continuation). Under the antidump-\\ning duty order (ADD Order), i.e., the Rebar Order as modi-\\nfied by the 2007 Continuation, the “product covered is all\\nsteel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) sold in straight\\nlengths,” but “[s]pecifically excluded are plain rounds (i.e.,\\nnon-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has been fur-\\nther processed through bending or coating.” Rebar Order,\\n66 Fed. Reg. at 46,777; see also Continuation, 72 Fed. Reg.\\nat 46,831. In its application for a scope ruling, Quiedan\\nasked Commerce to determine that its stakes are outside\\nthe scope of that definition because, it contended, they are\\nnot straight, are further processed through bending, or are\\nso-called merchant bar. The Rebar Trade Action Coalition\\n(RTAC), the sole filer of the petition that led to issuance of\\nthe ADD Order, opposed Quiedan’s position.\\n Commerce rejected Quiedan’s position. Commerce con-\\nsidered whether the merchandise is within the ADD Or-\\nder’s scope by examining Quiedan’s application for the\\nscope ruling and the factors specified in subsection (k)(1)—\\n“[t]he descriptions of the merchandise contained in the pe-\\ntition, the initial investigation, and the determinations of\\nthe Secretary (including prior scope determinations) and\\nthe Commission.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1). Where anal-\\nysis based on those considerations answers the scope ques-\\ntion, Commerce is to issue “a final ruling” as to scope. 19\\nC.F.R. § 351.225(d). In this case, Commerce determined\\nthat the (k)(1) analysis makes clear that Quiedan’s stakes\\nare “within the plain language of the” ADD Order and “not\\nsubject to any exclusion.” J.A. 145. Commerce therefore\\nissued a scope ruling so stating. J.A. 139–46.\\n It is undisputed that Customs and Border Protection\\n(CBP) had already been suspending liquidation—the final\\ncalculation of duties owed, 19 C.F.R. § 159.1—of entries of\\nQuiedan’s stakes, which were facially subject to the ADD\\nOrder here. See Am. Power Pull Corp. v. United States, 121\\nF. Supp. 3d 1296, 1300–01 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015)\\n\\f4 QUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n(describing process of cash deposits and suspension of en-\\ntries under an antidumping duty order pending adminis-\\ntrative review under 19 U.S.C. § 1675). After Commerce\\nissued its scope ruling confirming coverage of the stakes by\\nthe ADD Order, it instructed CBP to continue such suspen-\\nsion, including for entries made before the scope ruling was\\nissued. J.A. 191; see 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(l) (providing for\\ncontinuation of suspension of liquidations during and after\\nscope rulings).\\n Quiedan challenged the scope ruling in the Court of In-\\nternational Trade under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi)\\n(2012) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2012), adding an invocation\\nof 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) (2012) to challenge Commerce’s in-\\nstructions regarding suspension of liquidation. The Court\\nof International Trade rejected Quiedan’s challenges and\\naffirmed Commerce’s scope ruling and instructions.\\nQuiedan Co. v. United States, 294 F. Supp. 3d 1345 (Ct.\\nInt’l Trade 2018). Quiedan timely appealed. We have ju-\\nrisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(5), 2107, and 2645(c).\\n II\\n We review the Commerce decisions at issue de novo,\\nusing the same standard of review applied by the Court of\\nInternational Trade, see Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coal.\\nv. United States, 866 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2017),\\nwhile giving “great weight” to the informed view of the\\nCourt of International Trade, Nan Ya Plastics Corp., Ltd.\\nv. United States, 810 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In\\nreviewing the scope ruling, we ask if the decision is “unsup-\\nported by substantial evidence on the record[] or otherwise\\nnot in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i);\\nsee Diamond Sawblades, 866 F.3d at 1310; Dupont Teijin\\nFilms USA, LP v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211, 1215 (Fed.\\nCir. 2005). In reviewing the continued-suspension instruc-\\ntions challenged in the Court of International Trade under\\n28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), we apply the standard of review of 5\\nU.S.C. § 706, which, as relevant here, directs us to ask if\\n\\fQUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES 5\\n\\n\\n\\nCommerce’s action was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of\\ndiscretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” See\\n28 U.S.C. § 2640(e). Applying those standards here, we af-\\nfirm.\\n A\\n There is no dispute that Quiedan’s stakes are made\\nfrom rebar by cutting a long bar to a desired length and\\nsharpening the result to a point at one end through stamp-\\ning, followed by removal of burrs from the point. Quiedan\\nmakes essentially three substantive arguments that Com-\\nmerce nonetheless erred in ruling that the stakes are\\nwithin the ADD Order. We reject all three arguments.\\n First: Quiedan argues that, because of the point at one\\nend, the products are not “sold in straight lengths,” as re-\\nquired by the Rebar Order, 66 Fed. Reg. at 46,777. Com-\\nmerce correctly rejected that argument. As a matter of\\ncommon sense in context, the stakes have a “straight\\nlength” notwithstanding the point at one end, just as a pen-\\ncil has a straight length even when sharpened by whittling.\\n Commerce explained that “[f]rom the tip of the point to\\nthe center of the butt end, Quiedan’s rebar continuously”\\nextends “in the same direction,” and “the bar is objectively\\nstraight from end to end.” J.A. 144. Commerce took a prac-\\ntical view suited to the context, explaining that the pres-\\nence of a point “technically composed of multiple angles[]\\ndoes not change the fundamental character of the bar as\\nbeing straight throughout its length.” Id. (footnote citing\\npictures of merchandise). The presence of some angles on\\nthe stakes by itself is not disqualifying: indeed, rebar, even\\nwhen not cut to the lengths of Quiedan’s stakes, has a\\nroughened surface, necessarily having angles at a visible\\nscale. Although not necessary to Commerce’s conclusion,\\nthe point at one end of a Quiedan stake (even if not per-\\nfectly conical) retains the basic structural feature of prac-\\ntical symmetry about a linear axis running entirely\\nthrough the stake along its “length.” See J.A. 26\\n\\f6 QUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n(photograph). The view of the stake along its length as a\\nwhole is the perspective appropriate to the terminology,\\n“straight lengths.” In the context of the product and the\\nADD Order’s language, Quiedan’s stakes must be deemed,\\nat the relevant scale and considered along the “length,” as\\n“‘without a bend, angle, or curve.’” Id. (quoting Diction-\\nary.com definition). The stakes thus clearly have a\\n“straight length.”\\n Before Commerce, Quiedan suggested that its stakes,\\neven if they have a “straight length,” might be excluded as\\nhaving been “processed through bending.” See id. Quiedan\\ndoes not seem to make any argument in this court that the\\n“processed through bending” exclusion applies if the “sold\\nin straight lengths” requirement is met. See Oral Argu-\\nment at 5:58–6:15 (“Q: How are they bent? A: Because\\nthey’re no longer straight.”). Regardless, Quiedan has pro-\\nvided no basis for a conclusion that the stamping-and-burr-\\nremoval process could fairly be described as a process of\\n“bending.”\\n Second: Quiedan argues that the stakes are excluded\\nfrom the ADD Order because they are “merchant bar.”\\nThat term does not appear in the ADD Order, but the In-\\nternational Trade Commission used it, evidently to refer to\\nsomething different from “rebar” and hence outside the\\nADD Order, when in 2013 it explained the results of its\\nSecond Sunset Review of the Order. See Steel Concrete Re-\\ninforcing Bar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia, Mol-\\ndova, Poland, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-873, 731-TA-\\n874, 731-TA-875, USITC Pub. 4409, at I-25 (July 1, 2013)\\n(conducted pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)); J.A. 117. We\\nconclude that Commerce correctly rejected Quiedan’s argu-\\nment that the stakes at issue are “merchant bar.” J.A. 145.\\n The Commission said that “[m]erchant bar products\\ninclude bars with round, square, flat, angled, and chan-\\nneled cross sections, and are used by fabricators and man-\\nufacturers to produce a variety of products, including steel\\n\\fQUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES 7\\n\\n\\n\\nfloor and roof joists, safety walkways, ornamental furni-\\nture, stair railings, and farm equipment.” J.A. 117. Com-\\nmerce determined that Quiedan’s stakes are not “merchant\\nbar,” because “there is no record evidence that demon-\\nstrates sharpening a piece of deformed rebar to a point\\ntransforms it into merchant bar.” J.A. 145. Commerce\\n“disagree[d] that the slight change in appearance of the re-\\nbar that has been stamped to a point and deburred changes\\nthe character of the deformed rebar to such a degree that\\nit becomes merchant bar.” Id.\\n Quiedan makes no effort in this appeal to demonstrate\\nthat there was any record evidence that merchant bar can\\nresult from starting with rebar and simply cutting it and\\nsharpening an end to a deburred point. To the contrary,\\nthe Second Sunset Review, which is the sole basis for\\nQuiedan’s argument, nowhere suggests that merchant bar\\ncan result from rebar in those ways. It says only that mer-\\nchant bar can be produced using the same equipment that\\nsome manufacturers use to make rebar. See USITC Pub.\\n4409, at I-25.\\n Quiedan observes that, early in the scope ruling here,\\nCommerce said that “the description of the merchandise\\nunder consideration also comports with” a description\\nfound in the Second Sunset Review, citing and quoting that\\nReview’s description of merchant bar. J.A. 143 & n.31.\\nQuiedan’s observation about the scope ruling is correct, but\\nit does not undermine Commerce’s ruling. What Com-\\nmerce said was a mistake, and Commerce did not repeat it\\nor rely on it later in its analysis, including in the explana-\\ntion of why Quiedan’s stakes are not merchant bar. We\\nagree with the Court of International Trade that the minor\\nerror in Commerce’s footnote did not influence the decision\\nand does not justify a remand. See Quiedan, 294 F. Supp.\\n3d at 1355 n.5.\\n Third: Quiedan argues that “rebar” is defined in some\\nway by what it is used for. Specifically, Quiedan suggests\\n\\f8 QUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nthat the intended use of a sharpened length of rebar as an\\nagricultural stake, rather than as support for concrete,\\nmakes the stakes not rebar. We reject this argument.\\n We have recognized a strong presumption that use con-\\nditions must be clear before a Commerce order can properly\\nbe construed as making the scope of covered merchandise\\nturn on how an item is used (or intended to be used), rather\\nthan what it is. See King Supply Co. v. United States, 674\\nF.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There is no basis for de-\\nparting from that approach here. Quiedan supplies no def-\\ninition of “rebar” that goes beyond indicating how it is\\ngenerally used. Such a definition is not enough to exclude\\na relatively unusual intended or actual use of the same\\nphysical product.\\n Commerce so stated when, in this case, it summarized\\nits 2012 ruling that “the usage of rebar . . . was immaterial\\nto the scope” of the ADD Order. J.A. 141; J.A. 140–41 (sum-\\nmarizing “Antidumping Duty Order on Steel Concrete Re-\\ninforcing Bars from the People’s Republic of China; Final\\nScope Ruling: Steel Pins,” dated January 19, 2012). But\\nCommerce noted that “Quiedan’s request does not assert\\nthat the end use or length of its training stakes be taken\\ninto consideration.” J.A. 145; see J.A. 29–30 (Quiedan’s\\nScope Ruling Request) (“Quiedan is not arguing that the\\nmere size or use of its Training Stakes takes them outside\\nthe scope of the Rebar Order. Rather, for the reasons set\\nout below, Quiedan is seeking a scope ruling from [Com-\\nmerce] confirming that the Training Stakes are excluded\\nand/or outside the scope of the [ADD Order] due to their\\nphysical properties and fabrication.”). For that reason,\\nCommerce properly found it unnecessary to rely on its 2012\\nruling in this matter.\\n We have considered Quiedan’s remaining arguments\\nand find them unpersuasive. Quiedan’s arguments fail to\\nundermine Commerce’s conclusion that the stakes at issue\\nare clearly within the language of the ADD Order,\\n\\fQUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES 9\\n\\n\\n\\nconsidering the factors specified in § 351.225(k)(1). We\\ntherefore reject Quiedan’s substantive challenges to Com-\\nmerce’s scope ruling.\\n B\\n Quiedan has made two additional, related arguments:\\n(1) Commerce should have initiated a formal scope inquiry,\\nand (2) Commerce improperly instructed CBP to continue\\nsuspending liquidation on the training stakes, including\\nfor entries made before Commerce issued its final scope\\nruling. Quiedan’s briefing seems to accept that neither ar-\\ngument has merit if, as we conclude in agreement with\\nCommerce and the Court of International Trade, there is\\nno genuine ambiguity about the coverage by the anti-\\ndumping duty order of the merchandise at issue. See Ap-\\npellant Br. 35–36, 41–48; Reply Br. 22, 28. In fact, it is\\nclear that no formal inquiry is required where a (k)(1) anal-\\nysis is dispositive. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(d); AMS As-\\nsocs., Inc. v. United States, 737 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir.\\n2013). It is similarly clear that continued suspension of\\nliquidation is proper, at least where the scope ruling con-\\nfirms a clear meaning. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(l); Sun-\\npreme Inc. v. United States, 924 F.3d 1198, 1212–15 (Fed.\\nCir. 2019) (explaining that continuation of suspension is\\nproper if the underlying order is clear, but determining\\nthat the order in the particular case was ambiguous by\\nCommerce’s own acknowledgment). Because we have de-\\ntermined that the ADD Order is clear in covering\\nQuiedan’s stakes, we reject Quiedan’s arguments of error\\nregarding initiation of a formal scope inquiry and suspen-\\nsion of liquidation.\\n III\\n For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of\\nthe Court of International Trade.\\n No costs.\\n AFFIRMED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4413254/\", \"author_raw\": \"TARANTO, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"REYNA"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"WALLACH"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"TARANTO"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4636001/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: QUIEDAN COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Rebar Trade Action Coalition, Defendants-Appellees\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n QUIEDAN COMPANY,\n Plaintiff-Appellant\n\n v.\n\n UNITED STATES, REBAR TRADE ACTION\n COALITION,\n Defendants-Appellees\n ______________________\n\n 2018-1962\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States Court of International\nTrade in No. 1:16-cv-00275-JCG, Judge Jennifer Choe-\nGroves.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: July 2, 2019\n ______________________\n\n KAVITA MOHAN, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silver-\nman & Klestadt LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-\nappellant. Also represented by JORDAN CHARLES KAHN,\nANDREW THOMAS SCHUTZ; NED H. MARSHAK, New York,\nNY.\n\n TARA K. HOGAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil\nDivision, United States Department of Justice, Washing-\nton, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also\nrepresented by MARGARET JANTZEN, JOSEPH H. HUNT,\nJEANNE DAVIDSON, LOREN MISHA PREHEIM; CHRISTOPHER\n\f2 QUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\nHYNER, BRENDAN SASLOW, United States Department of\nCommerce, Washington, DC.\n\n JOHN R. SHANE, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, ar-\ngued for defendant-appellee Rebar Trade Action Coalition.\nAlso represented by ALAN H. PRICE, JEFFREY OWEN FRANK,\nMAUREEN E. THORSON.\n ______________________\n\n Before REYNA, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.\nTARANTO, Circuit Judge.\n Quiedan Company is an importer of agricultural stakes\nproduced in the People’s Republic of China. It imports the\nstakes for use in training grape vines and other plants.\nEach stake is made of steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar)\nby cutting rebar to a length of four to five feet followed by\nsharpening one end to a point to ease driving the stake into\nthe ground. The United States Department of Commerce\nconcluded that Quiedan’s stakes are clearly within the\nscope of an antidumping duty order covering rebar from\nChina. We see no substantive or procedural error in that\nruling or in Commerce’s continuation of a suspension of liq-\nuidation for Quiedan’s stakes. Because the Court of Inter-\nnational Trade drew the same conclusions, we affirm.\n I\n On May 6, 2016, Quiedan applied to Commerce, under\n19 C.F.R. § 351.225, for a ruling on the scope of an anti-\ndumping duty order that covers rebar products from\nChina—an order first issued in 2001 based on the required\ndeterminations by Commerce and the International Trade\nCommission. See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Bel-\narus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People’s Republic of\nChina, Poland, Republic of Korea and Ukraine, 66 Fed.\nReg. 46,777 (Sept. 7, 2001) (Rebar Order); see also Steel\nConcrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia,\nMoldova, People’s Republic of China, Poland and Ukraine:\n\fQUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES 3\n\n\n\nContinuation of Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 Fed. Reg.\n44,830 (Aug. 9, 2007) (Continuation). Under the antidump-\ning duty order (ADD Order), i.e., the Rebar Order as modi-\nfied by the 2007 Continuation, the “product covered is all\nsteel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) sold in straight\nlengths,” but “[s]pecifically excluded are plain rounds (i.e.,\nnon-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has been fur-\nther processed through bending or coating.” Rebar Order,\n66 Fed. Reg. at 46,777; see also Continuation, 72 Fed. Reg.\nat 46,831. In its application for a scope ruling, Quiedan\nasked Commerce to determine that its stakes are outside\nthe scope of that definition because, it contended, they are\nnot straight, are further processed through bending, or are\nso-called merchant bar. The Rebar Trade Action Coalition\n(RTAC), the sole filer of the petition that led to issuance of\nthe ADD Order, opposed Quiedan’s position.\n Commerce rejected Quiedan’s position. Commerce con-\nsidered whether the merchandise is within the ADD Or-\nder’s scope by examining Quiedan’s application for the\nscope ruling and the factors specified in subsection (k)(1)—\n“[t]he descriptions of the merchandise contained in the pe-\ntition, the initial investigation, and the determinations of\nthe Secretary (including prior scope determinations) and\nthe Commission.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1). Where anal-\nysis based on those considerations answers the scope ques-\ntion, Commerce is to issue “a final ruling” as to scope. 19\nC.F.R. § 351.225(d). In this case, Commerce determined\nthat the (k)(1) analysis makes clear that Quiedan’s stakes\nare “within the plain language of the” ADD Order and “not\nsubject to any exclusion.” J.A. 145. Commerce therefore\nissued a scope ruling so stating. J.A. 139–46.\n It is undisputed that Customs and Border Protection\n(CBP) had already been suspending liquidation—the final\ncalculation of duties owed, 19 C.F.R. § 159.1—of entries of\nQuiedan’s stakes, which were facially subject to the ADD\nOrder here. See Am. Power Pull Corp. v. United States, 121\nF. Supp. 3d 1296, 1300–01 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015)\n\f4 QUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\n(describing process of cash deposits and suspension of en-\ntries under an antidumping duty order pending adminis-\ntrative review under 19 U.S.C. § 1675). After Commerce\nissued its scope ruling confirming coverage of the stakes by\nthe ADD Order, it instructed CBP to continue such suspen-\nsion, including for entries made before the scope ruling was\nissued. J.A. 191; see 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(l) (providing for\ncontinuation of suspension of liquidations during and after\nscope rulings).\n Quiedan challenged the scope ruling in the Court of In-\nternational Trade under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi)\n(2012) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2012), adding an invocation\nof 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) (2012) to challenge Commerce’s in-\nstructions regarding suspension of liquidation. The Court\nof International Trade rejected Quiedan’s challenges and\naffirmed Commerce’s scope ruling and instructions.\nQuiedan Co. v. United States, 294 F. Supp. 3d 1345 (Ct.\nInt’l Trade 2018). Quiedan timely appealed. We have ju-\nrisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(5), 2107, and 2645(c).\n II\n We review the Commerce decisions at issue de novo,\nusing the same standard of review applied by the Court of\nInternational Trade, see Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coal.\nv. United States, 866 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2017),\nwhile giving “great weight” to the informed view of the\nCourt of International Trade, Nan Ya Plastics Corp., Ltd.\nv. United States, 810 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In\nreviewing the scope ruling, we ask if the decision is “unsup-\nported by substantial evidence on the record[] or otherwise\nnot in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i);\nsee Diamond Sawblades, 866 F.3d at 1310; Dupont Teijin\nFilms USA, LP v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211, 1215 (Fed.\nCir. 2005). In reviewing the continued-suspension instruc-\ntions challenged in the Court of International Trade under\n28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), we apply the standard of review of 5\nU.S.C. § 706, which, as relevant here, directs us to ask if\n\fQUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES 5\n\n\n\nCommerce’s action was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of\ndiscretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” See\n28 U.S.C. § 2640(e). Applying those standards here, we af-\nfirm.\n A\n There is no dispute that Quiedan’s stakes are made\nfrom rebar by cutting a long bar to a desired length and\nsharpening the result to a point at one end through stamp-\ning, followed by removal of burrs from the point. Quiedan\nmakes essentially three substantive arguments that Com-\nmerce nonetheless erred in ruling that the stakes are\nwithin the ADD Order. We reject all three arguments.\n First: Quiedan argues that, because of the point at one\nend, the products are not “sold in straight lengths,” as re-\nquired by the Rebar Order, 66 Fed. Reg. at 46,777. Com-\nmerce correctly rejected that argument. As a matter of\ncommon sense in context, the stakes have a “straight\nlength” notwithstanding the point at one end, just as a pen-\ncil has a straight length even when sharpened by whittling.\n Commerce explained that “[f]rom the tip of the point to\nthe center of the butt end, Quiedan’s rebar continuously”\nextends “in the same direction,” and “the bar is objectively\nstraight from end to end.” J.A. 144. Commerce took a prac-\ntical view suited to the context, explaining that the pres-\nence of a point “technically composed of multiple angles[]\ndoes not change the fundamental character of the bar as\nbeing straight throughout its length.” Id. (footnote citing\npictures of merchandise). The presence of some angles on\nthe stakes by itself is not disqualifying: indeed, rebar, even\nwhen not cut to the lengths of Quiedan’s stakes, has a\nroughened surface, necessarily having angles at a visible\nscale. Although not necessary to Commerce’s conclusion,\nthe point at one end of a Quiedan stake (even if not per-\nfectly conical) retains the basic structural feature of prac-\ntical symmetry about a linear axis running entirely\nthrough the stake along its “length.” See J.A. 26\n\f6 QUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\n(photograph). The view of the stake along its length as a\nwhole is the perspective appropriate to the terminology,\n“straight lengths.” In the context of the product and the\nADD Order’s language, Quiedan’s stakes must be deemed,\nat the relevant scale and considered along the “length,” as\n“‘without a bend, angle, or curve.’” Id. (quoting Diction-\nary.com definition). The stakes thus clearly have a\n“straight length.”\n Before Commerce, Quiedan suggested that its stakes,\neven if they have a “straight length,” might be excluded as\nhaving been “processed through bending.” See id. Quiedan\ndoes not seem to make any argument in this court that the\n“processed through bending” exclusion applies if the “sold\nin straight lengths” requirement is met. See Oral Argu-\nment at 5:58–6:15 (“Q: How are they bent? A: Because\nthey’re no longer straight.”). Regardless, Quiedan has pro-\nvided no basis for a conclusion that the stamping-and-burr-\nremoval process could fairly be described as a process of\n“bending.”\n Second: Quiedan argues that the stakes are excluded\nfrom the ADD Order because they are “merchant bar.”\nThat term does not appear in the ADD Order, but the In-\nternational Trade Commission used it, evidently to refer to\nsomething different from “rebar” and hence outside the\nADD Order, when in 2013 it explained the results of its\nSecond Sunset Review of the Order. See Steel Concrete Re-\ninforcing Bar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia, Mol-\ndova, Poland, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-873, 731-TA-\n874, 731-TA-875, USITC Pub. 4409, at I-25 (July 1, 2013)\n(conducted pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)); J.A. 117. We\nconclude that Commerce correctly rejected Quiedan’s argu-\nment that the stakes at issue are “merchant bar.” J.A. 145.\n The Commission said that “[m]erchant bar products\ninclude bars with round, square, flat, angled, and chan-\nneled cross sections, and are used by fabricators and man-\nufacturers to produce a variety of products, including steel\n\fQUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES 7\n\n\n\nfloor and roof joists, safety walkways, ornamental furni-\nture, stair railings, and farm equipment.” J.A. 117. Com-\nmerce determined that Quiedan’s stakes are not “merchant\nbar,” because “there is no record evidence that demon-\nstrates sharpening a piece of deformed rebar to a point\ntransforms it into merchant bar.” J.A. 145. Commerce\n“disagree[d] that the slight change in appearance of the re-\nbar that has been stamped to a point and deburred changes\nthe character of the deformed rebar to such a degree that\nit becomes merchant bar.” Id.\n Quiedan makes no effort in this appeal to demonstrate\nthat there was any record evidence that merchant bar can\nresult from starting with rebar and simply cutting it and\nsharpening an end to a deburred point. To the contrary,\nthe Second Sunset Review, which is the sole basis for\nQuiedan’s argument, nowhere suggests that merchant bar\ncan result from rebar in those ways. It says only that mer-\nchant bar can be produced using the same equipment that\nsome manufacturers use to make rebar. See USITC Pub.\n4409, at I-25.\n Quiedan observes that, early in the scope ruling here,\nCommerce said that “the description of the merchandise\nunder consideration also comports with” a description\nfound in the Second Sunset Review, citing and quoting that\nReview’s description of merchant bar. J.A. 143 & n.31.\nQuiedan’s observation about the scope ruling is correct, but\nit does not undermine Commerce’s ruling. What Com-\nmerce said was a mistake, and Commerce did not repeat it\nor rely on it later in its analysis, including in the explana-\ntion of why Quiedan’s stakes are not merchant bar. We\nagree with the Court of International Trade that the minor\nerror in Commerce’s footnote did not influence the decision\nand does not justify a remand. See Quiedan, 294 F. Supp.\n3d at 1355 n.5.\n Third: Quiedan argues that “rebar” is defined in some\nway by what it is used for. Specifically, Quiedan suggests\n\f8 QUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\nthat the intended use of a sharpened length of rebar as an\nagricultural stake, rather than as support for concrete,\nmakes the stakes not rebar. We reject this argument.\n We have recognized a strong presumption that use con-\nditions must be clear before a Commerce order can properly\nbe construed as making the scope of covered merchandise\nturn on how an item is used (or intended to be used), rather\nthan what it is. See King Supply Co. v. United States, 674\nF.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There is no basis for de-\nparting from that approach here. Quiedan supplies no def-\ninition of “rebar” that goes beyond indicating how it is\ngenerally used. Such a definition is not enough to exclude\na relatively unusual intended or actual use of the same\nphysical product.\n Commerce so stated when, in this case, it summarized\nits 2012 ruling that “the usage of rebar . . . was immaterial\nto the scope” of the ADD Order. J.A. 141; J.A. 140–41 (sum-\nmarizing “Antidumping Duty Order on Steel Concrete Re-\ninforcing Bars from the People’s Republic of China; Final\nScope Ruling: Steel Pins,” dated January 19, 2012). But\nCommerce noted that “Quiedan’s request does not assert\nthat the end use or length of its training stakes be taken\ninto consideration.” J.A. 145; see J.A. 29–30 (Quiedan’s\nScope Ruling Request) (“Quiedan is not arguing that the\nmere size or use of its Training Stakes takes them outside\nthe scope of the Rebar Order. Rather, for the reasons set\nout below, Quiedan is seeking a scope ruling from [Com-\nmerce] confirming that the Training Stakes are excluded\nand/or outside the scope of the [ADD Order] due to their\nphysical properties and fabrication.”). For that reason,\nCommerce properly found it unnecessary to rely on its 2012\nruling in this matter.\n We have considered Quiedan’s remaining arguments\nand find them unpersuasive. Quiedan’s arguments fail to\nundermine Commerce’s conclusion that the stakes at issue\nare clearly within the language of the ADD Order,\n\fQUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES 9\n\n\n\nconsidering the factors specified in § 351.225(k)(1). We\ntherefore reject Quiedan’s substantive challenges to Com-\nmerce’s scope ruling.\n B\n Quiedan has made two additional, related arguments:\n(1) Commerce should have initiated a formal scope inquiry,\nand (2) Commerce improperly instructed CBP to continue\nsuspending liquidation on the training stakes, including\nfor entries made before Commerce issued its final scope\nruling. Quiedan’s briefing seems to accept that neither ar-\ngument has merit if, as we conclude in agreement with\nCommerce and the Court of International Trade, there is\nno genuine ambiguity about the coverage by the anti-\ndumping duty order of the merchandise at issue. See Ap-\npellant Br. 35–36, 41–48; Reply Br. 22, 28. In fact, it is\nclear that no formal inquiry is required where a (k)(1) anal-\nysis is dispositive. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(d); AMS As-\nsocs., Inc. v. United States, 737 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir.\n2013). It is similarly clear that continued suspension of\nliquidation is proper, at least where the scope ruling con-\nfirms a clear meaning. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(l); Sun-\npreme Inc. v. United States, 924 F.3d 1198, 1212–15 (Fed.\nCir. 2019) (explaining that continuation of suspension is\nproper if the underlying order is clear, but determining\nthat the order in the particular case was ambiguous by\nCommerce’s own acknowledgment). Because we have de-\ntermined that the ADD Order is clear in covering\nQuiedan’s stakes, we reject Quiedan’s arguments of error\nregarding initiation of a formal scope inquiry and suspen-\nsion of liquidation.\n III\n For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of\nthe Court of International Trade.\n No costs.\n AFFIRMED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: QUIEDAN COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Rebar Trade Action Coalition, Defendants-Appellees\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n QUIEDAN COMPANY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n UNITED STATES, REBAR TRADE ACTION\\n COALITION,\\n Defendants-Appellees\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1962\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Court of International\\nTrade in No. 1:16-cv-00275-JCG, Judge Jennifer Choe-\\nGroves.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 2, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n KAVITA MOHAN, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silver-\\nman & Klestadt LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-\\nappellant. Also represented by JORDAN CHARLES KAHN,\\nANDREW THOMAS SCHUTZ; NED H. MARSHAK, New York,\\nNY.\\n\\n TARA K. HOGAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil\\nDivision, United States Department of Justice, Washing-\\nton, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also\\nrepresented by MARGARET JANTZEN, JOSEPH H. HUNT,\\nJEANNE DAVIDSON, LOREN MISHA PREHEIM; CHRISTOPHER\\n\\f2 QUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nHYNER, BRENDAN SASLOW, United States Department of\\nCommerce, Washington, DC.\\n\\n JOHN R. SHANE, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, ar-\\ngued for defendant-appellee Rebar Trade Action Coalition.\\nAlso represented by ALAN H. PRICE, JEFFREY OWEN FRANK,\\nMAUREEN E. THORSON.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before REYNA, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.\\nTARANTO, Circuit Judge.\\n Quiedan Company is an importer of agricultural stakes\\nproduced in the People’s Republic of China. It imports the\\nstakes for use in training grape vines and other plants.\\nEach stake is made of steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar)\\nby cutting rebar to a length of four to five feet followed by\\nsharpening one end to a point to ease driving the stake into\\nthe ground. The United States Department of Commerce\\nconcluded that Quiedan’s stakes are clearly within the\\nscope of an antidumping duty order covering rebar from\\nChina. We see no substantive or procedural error in that\\nruling or in Commerce’s continuation of a suspension of liq-\\nuidation for Quiedan’s stakes. Because the Court of Inter-\\nnational Trade drew the same conclusions, we affirm.\\n I\\n On May 6, 2016, Quiedan applied to Commerce, under\\n19 C.F.R. § 351.225, for a ruling on the scope of an anti-\\ndumping duty order that covers rebar products from\\nChina—an order first issued in 2001 based on the required\\ndeterminations by Commerce and the International Trade\\nCommission. See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Bel-\\narus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People’s Republic of\\nChina, Poland, Republic of Korea and Ukraine, 66 Fed.\\nReg. 46,777 (Sept. 7, 2001) (Rebar Order); see also Steel\\nConcrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia,\\nMoldova, People’s Republic of China, Poland and Ukraine:\\n\\fQUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES 3\\n\\n\\n\\nContinuation of Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 Fed. Reg.\\n44,830 (Aug. 9, 2007) (Continuation). Under the antidump-\\ning duty order (ADD Order), i.e., the Rebar Order as modi-\\nfied by the 2007 Continuation, the “product covered is all\\nsteel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) sold in straight\\nlengths,” but “[s]pecifically excluded are plain rounds (i.e.,\\nnon-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has been fur-\\nther processed through bending or coating.” Rebar Order,\\n66 Fed. Reg. at 46,777; see also Continuation, 72 Fed. Reg.\\nat 46,831. In its application for a scope ruling, Quiedan\\nasked Commerce to determine that its stakes are outside\\nthe scope of that definition because, it contended, they are\\nnot straight, are further processed through bending, or are\\nso-called merchant bar. The Rebar Trade Action Coalition\\n(RTAC), the sole filer of the petition that led to issuance of\\nthe ADD Order, opposed Quiedan’s position.\\n Commerce rejected Quiedan’s position. Commerce con-\\nsidered whether the merchandise is within the ADD Or-\\nder’s scope by examining Quiedan’s application for the\\nscope ruling and the factors specified in subsection (k)(1)—\\n“[t]he descriptions of the merchandise contained in the pe-\\ntition, the initial investigation, and the determinations of\\nthe Secretary (including prior scope determinations) and\\nthe Commission.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1). Where anal-\\nysis based on those considerations answers the scope ques-\\ntion, Commerce is to issue “a final ruling” as to scope. 19\\nC.F.R. § 351.225(d). In this case, Commerce determined\\nthat the (k)(1) analysis makes clear that Quiedan’s stakes\\nare “within the plain language of the” ADD Order and “not\\nsubject to any exclusion.” J.A. 145. Commerce therefore\\nissued a scope ruling so stating. J.A. 139–46.\\n It is undisputed that Customs and Border Protection\\n(CBP) had already been suspending liquidation—the final\\ncalculation of duties owed, 19 C.F.R. § 159.1—of entries of\\nQuiedan’s stakes, which were facially subject to the ADD\\nOrder here. See Am. Power Pull Corp. v. United States, 121\\nF. Supp. 3d 1296, 1300–01 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015)\\n\\f4 QUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n(describing process of cash deposits and suspension of en-\\ntries under an antidumping duty order pending adminis-\\ntrative review under 19 U.S.C. § 1675). After Commerce\\nissued its scope ruling confirming coverage of the stakes by\\nthe ADD Order, it instructed CBP to continue such suspen-\\nsion, including for entries made before the scope ruling was\\nissued. J.A. 191; see 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(l) (providing for\\ncontinuation of suspension of liquidations during and after\\nscope rulings).\\n Quiedan challenged the scope ruling in the Court of In-\\nternational Trade under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi)\\n(2012) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2012), adding an invocation\\nof 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) (2012) to challenge Commerce’s in-\\nstructions regarding suspension of liquidation. The Court\\nof International Trade rejected Quiedan’s challenges and\\naffirmed Commerce’s scope ruling and instructions.\\nQuiedan Co. v. United States, 294 F. Supp. 3d 1345 (Ct.\\nInt’l Trade 2018). Quiedan timely appealed. We have ju-\\nrisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(5), 2107, and 2645(c).\\n II\\n We review the Commerce decisions at issue de novo,\\nusing the same standard of review applied by the Court of\\nInternational Trade, see Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coal.\\nv. United States, 866 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2017),\\nwhile giving “great weight” to the informed view of the\\nCourt of International Trade, Nan Ya Plastics Corp., Ltd.\\nv. United States, 810 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In\\nreviewing the scope ruling, we ask if the decision is “unsup-\\nported by substantial evidence on the record[] or otherwise\\nnot in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i);\\nsee Diamond Sawblades, 866 F.3d at 1310; Dupont Teijin\\nFilms USA, LP v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211, 1215 (Fed.\\nCir. 2005). In reviewing the continued-suspension instruc-\\ntions challenged in the Court of International Trade under\\n28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), we apply the standard of review of 5\\nU.S.C. § 706, which, as relevant here, directs us to ask if\\n\\fQUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES 5\\n\\n\\n\\nCommerce’s action was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of\\ndiscretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” See\\n28 U.S.C. § 2640(e). Applying those standards here, we af-\\nfirm.\\n A\\n There is no dispute that Quiedan’s stakes are made\\nfrom rebar by cutting a long bar to a desired length and\\nsharpening the result to a point at one end through stamp-\\ning, followed by removal of burrs from the point. Quiedan\\nmakes essentially three substantive arguments that Com-\\nmerce nonetheless erred in ruling that the stakes are\\nwithin the ADD Order. We reject all three arguments.\\n First: Quiedan argues that, because of the point at one\\nend, the products are not “sold in straight lengths,” as re-\\nquired by the Rebar Order, 66 Fed. Reg. at 46,777. Com-\\nmerce correctly rejected that argument. As a matter of\\ncommon sense in context, the stakes have a “straight\\nlength” notwithstanding the point at one end, just as a pen-\\ncil has a straight length even when sharpened by whittling.\\n Commerce explained that “[f]rom the tip of the point to\\nthe center of the butt end, Quiedan’s rebar continuously”\\nextends “in the same direction,” and “the bar is objectively\\nstraight from end to end.” J.A. 144. Commerce took a prac-\\ntical view suited to the context, explaining that the pres-\\nence of a point “technically composed of multiple angles[]\\ndoes not change the fundamental character of the bar as\\nbeing straight throughout its length.” Id. (footnote citing\\npictures of merchandise). The presence of some angles on\\nthe stakes by itself is not disqualifying: indeed, rebar, even\\nwhen not cut to the lengths of Quiedan’s stakes, has a\\nroughened surface, necessarily having angles at a visible\\nscale. Although not necessary to Commerce’s conclusion,\\nthe point at one end of a Quiedan stake (even if not per-\\nfectly conical) retains the basic structural feature of prac-\\ntical symmetry about a linear axis running entirely\\nthrough the stake along its “length.” See J.A. 26\\n\\f6 QUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n(photograph). The view of the stake along its length as a\\nwhole is the perspective appropriate to the terminology,\\n“straight lengths.” In the context of the product and the\\nADD Order’s language, Quiedan’s stakes must be deemed,\\nat the relevant scale and considered along the “length,” as\\n“‘without a bend, angle, or curve.’” Id. (quoting Diction-\\nary.com definition). The stakes thus clearly have a\\n“straight length.”\\n Before Commerce, Quiedan suggested that its stakes,\\neven if they have a “straight length,” might be excluded as\\nhaving been “processed through bending.” See id. Quiedan\\ndoes not seem to make any argument in this court that the\\n“processed through bending” exclusion applies if the “sold\\nin straight lengths” requirement is met. See Oral Argu-\\nment at 5:58–6:15 (“Q: How are they bent? A: Because\\nthey’re no longer straight.”). Regardless, Quiedan has pro-\\nvided no basis for a conclusion that the stamping-and-burr-\\nremoval process could fairly be described as a process of\\n“bending.”\\n Second: Quiedan argues that the stakes are excluded\\nfrom the ADD Order because they are “merchant bar.”\\nThat term does not appear in the ADD Order, but the In-\\nternational Trade Commission used it, evidently to refer to\\nsomething different from “rebar” and hence outside the\\nADD Order, when in 2013 it explained the results of its\\nSecond Sunset Review of the Order. See Steel Concrete Re-\\ninforcing Bar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia, Mol-\\ndova, Poland, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-873, 731-TA-\\n874, 731-TA-875, USITC Pub. 4409, at I-25 (July 1, 2013)\\n(conducted pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)); J.A. 117. We\\nconclude that Commerce correctly rejected Quiedan’s argu-\\nment that the stakes at issue are “merchant bar.” J.A. 145.\\n The Commission said that “[m]erchant bar products\\ninclude bars with round, square, flat, angled, and chan-\\nneled cross sections, and are used by fabricators and man-\\nufacturers to produce a variety of products, including steel\\n\\fQUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES 7\\n\\n\\n\\nfloor and roof joists, safety walkways, ornamental furni-\\nture, stair railings, and farm equipment.” J.A. 117. Com-\\nmerce determined that Quiedan’s stakes are not “merchant\\nbar,” because “there is no record evidence that demon-\\nstrates sharpening a piece of deformed rebar to a point\\ntransforms it into merchant bar.” J.A. 145. Commerce\\n“disagree[d] that the slight change in appearance of the re-\\nbar that has been stamped to a point and deburred changes\\nthe character of the deformed rebar to such a degree that\\nit becomes merchant bar.” Id.\\n Quiedan makes no effort in this appeal to demonstrate\\nthat there was any record evidence that merchant bar can\\nresult from starting with rebar and simply cutting it and\\nsharpening an end to a deburred point. To the contrary,\\nthe Second Sunset Review, which is the sole basis for\\nQuiedan’s argument, nowhere suggests that merchant bar\\ncan result from rebar in those ways. It says only that mer-\\nchant bar can be produced using the same equipment that\\nsome manufacturers use to make rebar. See USITC Pub.\\n4409, at I-25.\\n Quiedan observes that, early in the scope ruling here,\\nCommerce said that “the description of the merchandise\\nunder consideration also comports with” a description\\nfound in the Second Sunset Review, citing and quoting that\\nReview’s description of merchant bar. J.A. 143 & n.31.\\nQuiedan’s observation about the scope ruling is correct, but\\nit does not undermine Commerce’s ruling. What Com-\\nmerce said was a mistake, and Commerce did not repeat it\\nor rely on it later in its analysis, including in the explana-\\ntion of why Quiedan’s stakes are not merchant bar. We\\nagree with the Court of International Trade that the minor\\nerror in Commerce’s footnote did not influence the decision\\nand does not justify a remand. See Quiedan, 294 F. Supp.\\n3d at 1355 n.5.\\n Third: Quiedan argues that “rebar” is defined in some\\nway by what it is used for. Specifically, Quiedan suggests\\n\\f8 QUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nthat the intended use of a sharpened length of rebar as an\\nagricultural stake, rather than as support for concrete,\\nmakes the stakes not rebar. We reject this argument.\\n We have recognized a strong presumption that use con-\\nditions must be clear before a Commerce order can properly\\nbe construed as making the scope of covered merchandise\\nturn on how an item is used (or intended to be used), rather\\nthan what it is. See King Supply Co. v. United States, 674\\nF.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There is no basis for de-\\nparting from that approach here. Quiedan supplies no def-\\ninition of “rebar” that goes beyond indicating how it is\\ngenerally used. Such a definition is not enough to exclude\\na relatively unusual intended or actual use of the same\\nphysical product.\\n Commerce so stated when, in this case, it summarized\\nits 2012 ruling that “the usage of rebar . . . was immaterial\\nto the scope” of the ADD Order. J.A. 141; J.A. 140–41 (sum-\\nmarizing “Antidumping Duty Order on Steel Concrete Re-\\ninforcing Bars from the People’s Republic of China; Final\\nScope Ruling: Steel Pins,” dated January 19, 2012). But\\nCommerce noted that “Quiedan’s request does not assert\\nthat the end use or length of its training stakes be taken\\ninto consideration.” J.A. 145; see J.A. 29–30 (Quiedan’s\\nScope Ruling Request) (“Quiedan is not arguing that the\\nmere size or use of its Training Stakes takes them outside\\nthe scope of the Rebar Order. Rather, for the reasons set\\nout below, Quiedan is seeking a scope ruling from [Com-\\nmerce] confirming that the Training Stakes are excluded\\nand/or outside the scope of the [ADD Order] due to their\\nphysical properties and fabrication.”). For that reason,\\nCommerce properly found it unnecessary to rely on its 2012\\nruling in this matter.\\n We have considered Quiedan’s remaining arguments\\nand find them unpersuasive. Quiedan’s arguments fail to\\nundermine Commerce’s conclusion that the stakes at issue\\nare clearly within the language of the ADD Order,\\n\\fQUIEDAN COMPANY v. UNITED STATES 9\\n\\n\\n\\nconsidering the factors specified in § 351.225(k)(1). We\\ntherefore reject Quiedan’s substantive challenges to Com-\\nmerce’s scope ruling.\\n B\\n Quiedan has made two additional, related arguments:\\n(1) Commerce should have initiated a formal scope inquiry,\\nand (2) Commerce improperly instructed CBP to continue\\nsuspending liquidation on the training stakes, including\\nfor entries made before Commerce issued its final scope\\nruling. Quiedan’s briefing seems to accept that neither ar-\\ngument has merit if, as we conclude in agreement with\\nCommerce and the Court of International Trade, there is\\nno genuine ambiguity about the coverage by the anti-\\ndumping duty order of the merchandise at issue. See Ap-\\npellant Br. 35–36, 41–48; Reply Br. 22, 28. In fact, it is\\nclear that no formal inquiry is required where a (k)(1) anal-\\nysis is dispositive. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(d); AMS As-\\nsocs., Inc. v. United States, 737 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir.\\n2013). It is similarly clear that continued suspension of\\nliquidation is proper, at least where the scope ruling con-\\nfirms a clear meaning. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(l); Sun-\\npreme Inc. v. United States, 924 F.3d 1198, 1212–15 (Fed.\\nCir. 2019) (explaining that continuation of suspension is\\nproper if the underlying order is clear, but determining\\nthat the order in the particular case was ambiguous by\\nCommerce’s own acknowledgment). Because we have de-\\ntermined that the ADD Order is clear in covering\\nQuiedan’s stakes, we reject Quiedan’s arguments of error\\nregarding initiation of a formal scope inquiry and suspen-\\nsion of liquidation.\\n III\\n For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of\\nthe Court of International Trade.\\n No costs.\\n AFFIRMED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3483,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4636003,"string":"4,636,003"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Graco Children's Products, Inc"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"2018-1259, 2018-1260"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Moore, Reyna, Chen\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"REYNA, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC.,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC.,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1259, 2018-1260\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016-\\n00816, IPR2016-00826.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 2, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n KYLE WALLENBERG, Niro McAndrews LLC, Chicago,\\nIL, argued for appellant. Also represented by RAYMOND P.\\nNIRO, JR.\\n\\n JOHN W. HARBIN, Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC, At-\\nlanta, GA, argued for appellee. Also represented by\\nGREGORY JOSEPH CARLIN, WALTER HILL LEVIE, III, WARREN\\nJAMES THOMAS.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before MOORE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f2 KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S\\n PRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\nREYNA, Circuit Judge.\\n Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. appeals the decision of the\\nUnited States Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding U.S.\\nDesign Patent Nos. D604,970 and D616,231 unpatentable\\nas obvious in light of the prior art. The primary issue on\\nappeal is whether Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. antedated the\\nprior art with evidence of its prior conception, diligence,\\nand reduction to practice. The Board determined that\\nKolcraft Enterprises, Inc. did not. We agree. Accordingly,\\nwe affirm.\\n BACKGROUND\\n Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. (“Kolcraft”) is the assignee of\\nU.S. Design Patent No. D604,970 S (“the ’970 patent”) and\\nU.S. Design Patent No. D616,231 S (“the ’231 patent”). The\\n’970 and ’231 patents are both titled “Exposed Legs for a\\nPlay Yard” and have an effective filing date of November 5,\\n2004. Each patent has one claim.\\n The ’970 patent contains seven figures. Figures 1 and\\n2 are depicted below.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nJ.A. 48–49. Figure 1 is “a perspective view of exposed legs\\nfor a play yard,” and Figure 2 is “a front view of the design\\nof FIG. 1.” J.A. 46, 48–49. The ’970 patent also states that\\n“[t]here is no fabric covering the exposed legs shown in any\\n\\fKOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S 3\\nPRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\nof FIGS. 1–7.” J.A. 46. The dashed lines do not form part\\nof the claimed design. See MPEP § 1503.02 (9th ed. 2018).\\n The ’231 patent has five figures. Figures 1 and 2 are\\nprovided below. Figure 1 is “a perspective view of a playard\\nwith exposed legs.” J.A. 52. Figure 2 is “a front view of the\\nplayard of FIG. 1.” Id. “There is no fabric covering the\\nexposed legs shown in any of FIGS. 1–5.” Id.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n On March 30, 2016, Graco Children’s Products, Inc.\\n(“Graco”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”)\\nchallenging the ’970 patent. A day later, Graco filed a sec-\\nond IPR petition challenging the ’231 patent. Graco pro-\\nposed eleven grounds of unpatentability for each patent,\\nincluding a ground for each patent that the claim is obvious\\nin light of U.S. Design Patent No. D494,393 assigned to\\nChen (“Chen ’393”). The United States Patent Trial and\\nAppeal Board (“Board”) instituted a single trial addressing\\nboth patents on the asserted grounds related to Chen ’393.\\n Kolcraft did not submit a preliminary owner response\\nto Graco’s petitions, but it filed a six-page Patent Owner\\n\\f4 KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S\\n PRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\nResponse 1 after the Board instituted trial. In its Patent\\nOwner Response, Kolcraft included a declaration signed by\\ninventors Damon Oliver Casati Troutman and Edward B.\\nBretschger (“Inventor Declaration”), with Exhibits A–H\\nappended to the declaration. The Patent Owner Response\\nargued that at least one of Exhibits A–H depicted features\\nof the claimed invention identified by the Board: (1) curved\\nlegs that bow outward; (2) no fabric covering the exposed\\nlegs; and (3) outward flaring at the top of the legs. Exhibits\\nA–H are a collection of photos and sketches of play yards\\nand instructions for assembling the prototype of the play\\nyard that Troutman and Bretschger claim to have in-\\nvented. Neither the Inventor Declaration discussing the\\nexhibits nor the exhibits themselves included specific dates\\nof conception. The Inventor Declaration redacted the dates\\nwhen the exhibits were purportedly created, using blank\\nspaces where relevant dates would have been to show that\\nthe inventions described in the ’970 and ’231 patents were\\nconceived of and reduced to practice on “a date prior to Jan-\\nuary 7, 2004,” the effective filing date of Chen ’393. J.A.\\n1181–84.\\n In March 2017, Graco deposed inventors Troutman and\\nBretschger. Before the depositions took place, Kolcraft pro-\\nvided Graco with an unredacted version of the inventors’\\ndeclaration, where the blank spaces were replaced with al-\\nleged dates of conception and reduction to practice. When\\nquestioned about the source of these dates, inventor Trout-\\nman testified that the dates were based on metadata asso-\\nciated with the computer files containing the exhibits.\\nGraco filed under seal with its reply the transcripts of\\nBretschger’s and Troutman’s depositions. One day before\\nthe July 6, 2017 oral hearing, Kolcraft filed under seal an\\nunredacted version of the Inventor Declaration attaching\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Kolcraft filed the same Patent Owner’s Response\\nfor each IPR.\\n\\fKOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S 5\\nPRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\nthe exhibits in paper form. Kolcraft did not file with the\\nBoard the computer files of the exhibits containing the\\nmetadata showing the purported dates of conception. Dur-\\ning the oral hearing before the Board, Kolcraft admitted\\nthat the unredacted version of the Inventor Declaration\\nwas “not in the record.” J.A. 2006.\\n At trial, the Board addressed whether Chen ’393 qual-\\nifies as prior art to the patents-in-suit and whether the pa-\\ntents-in-suit are obvious in view of Chen ’393. The Board\\nconcluded that Chen ’393 is prior art because Kolcraft\\nfailed to show that conception, diligence, and reduction to\\npractice of the ’970 and ’231 patents occurred before Chen\\n’393 was filed. The Board also found that the testimony of\\ninventors Bretschger and Troutman—explaining that they\\nconceived of the play yard invention before the effective fil-\\ning date of Chen ’393—was not corroborated by non-inven-\\ntor testimony, documents, or other evidence. Notably, the\\nBoard relied on the redacted version of the Inventor Decla-\\nration and did not take into account inventor deposition\\ntestimony of prior conception because the Board deemed\\nKolcraft’s reliance on inventor deposition testimony to be\\nwaived as it was raised for the first time at oral hearing.\\nThe Board also determined that the patents-in-suit were\\nobvious in view of Chen ’393.\\n Kolcraft timely appealed to this court. We have juris-\\ndiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).\\n DISCUSSION\\n On appeal, Kolcraft does not contest that, if we agree\\nthat Chen ’393 is prior art, then the ’970 and ’231 patents\\nare obvious. Kolcraft instead challenges whether the\\nBoard erred in finding that Troutman and Bretschger did\\nnot conceive of the inventions of the ’970 and ’231 patents\\nbefore the filing of Chen ’393 and that they did not exercise\\nreasonable diligence or reduce to practice the patented in-\\nventions before January 7, 2004.\\n\\f6 KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S\\n PRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\n This case turns on the corroboration of inventor testi-\\nmony. Only if there is sufficient corroboration do we ad-\\ndress whether Troutman and Bretschger conceived of the\\npatented inventions prior to January 7, 2004, the date\\nChen ’393 was filed.\\n Inventor testimony of conception must be corroborated\\nby other, independent information. Apator Miitors ApS v.\\nKamstrup A/S, 887 F.3d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing\\nMahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir.\\n1996); Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1032–33 (Fed. Cir.\\n1989)). Whether there is sufficient corroboration is gov-\\nerned by a “rule of reason” analysis, which requires all per-\\ntinent evidence to be examined to determine whether the\\ninventor’s testimony is credible. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d\\n1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Kridl v. McCormick, 105 F.3d\\n1446, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1997).\\n Conception is “the formation, in the mind of the inven-\\ntor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and\\noperative invention, as it is thereafter to be applied in prac-\\ntice.” REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, 841 F.3d\\n954, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Cole-\\nman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); see also\\nHoop v. Hoop, 279 F.3d 1004, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (stating\\nthat the standard for inventorship for design patents is the\\nsame as that for utility patents). Conception is a question\\nof law premised on underlying factual findings. In re\\nVerHoef, 888 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Apator, 887\\nF.3d at 1295. Sufficient corroboration is one of those fac-\\ntual findings. REG Synthetic, 841 F.3d at 958. We review\\nthe Board’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual find-\\nings for substantial evidence. Apator, 887 F.3d at 1295.\\n Kolcraft relies on inventor deposition testimony, the\\nInventor Declaration, and Exhibits A–H to show that the\\ninventors of the ’970 and ’231 patents conceived and dili-\\ngently reduced to practice the patented inventions before\\nJanuary 7, 2004. All cited evidence of prior conception,\\n\\fKOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S 7\\nPRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\nhowever, originated with the inventors of the ’970 and ’231\\npatents. The Board, in considering only the redacted In-\\nventor Declaration, found that Exhibits A–H and the In-\\nventor Declaration “are undated and find identification, if\\nat all, only via the conclusory and uncorroborated testi-\\nmony of the inventors.” J.A. 40. There is no evidence in\\nthe record independently corroborating the inventors’ al-\\nleged conception prior to Chen ’393. See Apator, 887 F.3d\\nat 1295 (stating that “evidence of corroboration must not\\ndepend solely on the inventor himself” (quoting Cooper v.\\nGoldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1998))). There-\\nfore, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that\\nthe Inventor Declaration and Exhibits A–H do not corrob-\\norate dates of prior conception sufficient to antedate Chen\\n’393.\\n Kolcraft argues that the Board should have considered\\nboth the unredacted Inventor Declaration and the inventor\\ndeposition testimony of prior conception in its Final Writ-\\nten Decision. That the Board did not consider the unre-\\ndacted Inventor Declaration or inventor deposition\\ntestimony (even if not waived) is immaterial here because\\nboth are supported solely by the inventors themselves.\\n In the same vein, specifics regarding Exhibits A–H are\\nsupported solely by Troutman and Bretschger. The inven-\\ntors declare that the drawings and prototypes depicted in\\nExhibits A–H were created on “a date prior to January 7,\\n2004.” J.A. 1182. But these dates are supported only by\\ninventor testimony. Therefore, Exhibits A–H fail to inde-\\npendently corroborate any inventor testimony showing\\nprior conception. See Hahn, 892 F.2d at 1032–33 (“The in-\\nventor, however, must provide independent corroborating\\nevidence in addition to his own statements and docu-\\nments.”); Kridl, 105 F.3d at 1450 (stating that corrobora-\\ntion is “independent confirmation of the inventor’s\\ntestimony”).\\n\\f8 KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S\\n PRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\n Kolcraft contends that Exhibits A–H do not need to be\\ncorroborated by non-inventor testimony or independent ev-\\nidence because they are “physical exhibit[s]” that are self-\\nexplanatory. Appellant Br. 28–29. Indeed, the court is ca-\\npable of comparing the photos and sketches of the various\\nplay yards illustrated in Exhibits A–H with the claimed in-\\nvention, but the fact remains that these exhibits are un-\\ndated and lack any showing of authorship. The evidence\\nas to the dates of creation of these Exhibits is found only in\\nthe Inventor Declaration and not in the Exhibits them-\\nselves.\\n Kolcraft also argues that the metadata associated with\\nthe Exhibits shows the dates when they were created. Yet\\nthe metadata is not part of the record. The only other dis-\\ncussion of metadata as possible corroborating evidence is\\nfound in the deposition testimony of inventor Troutman,\\nwhich is insufficient to corroborate inventor testimony of\\nprior conception. See Chen v. Bouchard, 347 F.3d 1299,\\n1310 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Evidence of the inventive facts must\\nnot rest alone on the testimony of the inventor himself.”);\\nsee also Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir.\\n2002) (stating that “the physical evidence in this case may\\nnot single-handedly corroborate” inventor testimony).\\n We addressed the question of inventor corroboration in\\nApator, 887 F.3d at 1293. There, we concluded that inven-\\ntor testimony of prior conception was not sufficiently cor-\\nroborated because all supporting evidence depended solely\\non the inventor. Id. at 1295–96. The inventor provided a\\ndeclaration in which he stated that he conceived of his in-\\nvention before the effective filing date of the prior art. Id.\\nat 1294. To corroborate the inventor testimony, patent\\nowner Apator Miitors ApS (“Apator”) also proffered three\\nunwitnessed emails from the inventor to third parties\\ndated before the effective filing date of the prior art and\\nvarious drawings of the claimed invention with file naming\\nconventions indicating dates of creation before the filing\\ndate of the prior art. Id. at 1294–95. The emails\\n\\fKOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S 9\\nPRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\npurportedly contained attachments showing prior concep-\\ntion, but there was no indication from the email headers\\nthat a file was attached. Id. at 1296–97. Nor did the bodies\\nof the emails indicate the content of the attachments. Id.\\nat 1296. For each of the emails and drawings, the only rec-\\nord evidence explaining the content of the attachments and\\nthe date of the drawings came from the Inventor Declara-\\ntion. Id. at 1296–97. Without the Inventor Declaration,\\nthe court could not independently discern whether a file\\nwas attached to the emails, the content of any attachments,\\nor the date the drawings were created. Id. As a result, we\\nheld that Apator failed to provide evidence corroborating\\ninventor testimony of prior conception. Id. at 1297.\\n Here, the purportedly corroborating evidence is even\\nweaker than the evidence presented in Apator. The record\\ncontains only the Inventor Declaration, inventor deposition\\ntestimony, and undated photos attached to the Inventor\\nDeclaration. Only the Inventor Declaration, i.e., inventor\\ntestimony, supports the purported dates showing concep-\\ntion prior to January 7, 2004. Inventor testimony alone\\ncannot prove conception. NFC Tech., LLC v. Matal, 871\\nF.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d\\n1187, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Considering all the evidence\\nin the record, a reasonable mind could conclude that\\nKolcraft failed to independently corroborate inventor testi-\\nmony of prior conception. Accordingly, we hold that sub-\\nstantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that\\nKolcraft has not established conception prior to the effec-\\ntive filing date of Chen ’393. Because prior conception has\\nnot been established, we need not address the issue of dili-\\ngence. See Apator, 887 F.3d at 1297.\\n CONCLUSION\\n We have considered Kolcraft’s remaining arguments\\nand find them unpersuasive and immaterial to the ques-\\ntion of corroboration. We hold that substantial evidence\\nsupports the Board’s finding that Kolcraft failed to\\n\\f10 KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S\\n PRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\ncorroborate inventor testimony of prior conception. Accord-\\ningly, we affirm the Board’s determination that the ’970\\nand ’231 patents are unpatentable as obvious in view of\\nChen ’393.\\n AFFIRMED\\n COSTS\\n No costs.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4413256/\", \"author_raw\": \"REYNA, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MOORE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"REYNA"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"CHEN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4636003/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC.,\n Appellant\n\n v.\n\n GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC.,\n Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2018-1259, 2018-1260\n ______________________\n\n Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016-\n00816, IPR2016-00826.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: July 2, 2019\n ______________________\n\n KYLE WALLENBERG, Niro McAndrews LLC, Chicago,\nIL, argued for appellant. Also represented by RAYMOND P.\nNIRO, JR.\n\n JOHN W. HARBIN, Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC, At-\nlanta, GA, argued for appellee. Also represented by\nGREGORY JOSEPH CARLIN, WALTER HILL LEVIE, III, WARREN\nJAMES THOMAS.\n ______________________\n\n Before MOORE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.\n\f2 KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S\n PRODUCTS, INC.\n\n\nREYNA, Circuit Judge.\n Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. appeals the decision of the\nUnited States Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding U.S.\nDesign Patent Nos. D604,970 and D616,231 unpatentable\nas obvious in light of the prior art. The primary issue on\nappeal is whether Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. antedated the\nprior art with evidence of its prior conception, diligence,\nand reduction to practice. The Board determined that\nKolcraft Enterprises, Inc. did not. We agree. Accordingly,\nwe affirm.\n BACKGROUND\n Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. (“Kolcraft”) is the assignee of\nU.S. Design Patent No. D604,970 S (“the ’970 patent”) and\nU.S. Design Patent No. D616,231 S (“the ’231 patent”). The\n’970 and ’231 patents are both titled “Exposed Legs for a\nPlay Yard” and have an effective filing date of November 5,\n2004. Each patent has one claim.\n The ’970 patent contains seven figures. Figures 1 and\n2 are depicted below.\n\n\n\n\nJ.A. 48–49. Figure 1 is “a perspective view of exposed legs\nfor a play yard,” and Figure 2 is “a front view of the design\nof FIG. 1.” J.A. 46, 48–49. The ’970 patent also states that\n“[t]here is no fabric covering the exposed legs shown in any\n\fKOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S 3\nPRODUCTS, INC.\n\n\nof FIGS. 1–7.” J.A. 46. The dashed lines do not form part\nof the claimed design. See MPEP § 1503.02 (9th ed. 2018).\n The ’231 patent has five figures. Figures 1 and 2 are\nprovided below. Figure 1 is “a perspective view of a playard\nwith exposed legs.” J.A. 52. Figure 2 is “a front view of the\nplayard of FIG. 1.” Id. “There is no fabric covering the\nexposed legs shown in any of FIGS. 1–5.” Id.\n\n\n\n\n On March 30, 2016, Graco Children’s Products, Inc.\n(“Graco”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”)\nchallenging the ’970 patent. A day later, Graco filed a sec-\nond IPR petition challenging the ’231 patent. Graco pro-\nposed eleven grounds of unpatentability for each patent,\nincluding a ground for each patent that the claim is obvious\nin light of U.S. Design Patent No. D494,393 assigned to\nChen (“Chen ’393”). The United States Patent Trial and\nAppeal Board (“Board”) instituted a single trial addressing\nboth patents on the asserted grounds related to Chen ’393.\n Kolcraft did not submit a preliminary owner response\nto Graco’s petitions, but it filed a six-page Patent Owner\n\f4 KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S\n PRODUCTS, INC.\n\n\nResponse 1 after the Board instituted trial. In its Patent\nOwner Response, Kolcraft included a declaration signed by\ninventors Damon Oliver Casati Troutman and Edward B.\nBretschger (“Inventor Declaration”), with Exhibits A–H\nappended to the declaration. The Patent Owner Response\nargued that at least one of Exhibits A–H depicted features\nof the claimed invention identified by the Board: (1) curved\nlegs that bow outward; (2) no fabric covering the exposed\nlegs; and (3) outward flaring at the top of the legs. Exhibits\nA–H are a collection of photos and sketches of play yards\nand instructions for assembling the prototype of the play\nyard that Troutman and Bretschger claim to have in-\nvented. Neither the Inventor Declaration discussing the\nexhibits nor the exhibits themselves included specific dates\nof conception. The Inventor Declaration redacted the dates\nwhen the exhibits were purportedly created, using blank\nspaces where relevant dates would have been to show that\nthe inventions described in the ’970 and ’231 patents were\nconceived of and reduced to practice on “a date prior to Jan-\nuary 7, 2004,” the effective filing date of Chen ’393. J.A.\n1181–84.\n In March 2017, Graco deposed inventors Troutman and\nBretschger. Before the depositions took place, Kolcraft pro-\nvided Graco with an unredacted version of the inventors’\ndeclaration, where the blank spaces were replaced with al-\nleged dates of conception and reduction to practice. When\nquestioned about the source of these dates, inventor Trout-\nman testified that the dates were based on metadata asso-\nciated with the computer files containing the exhibits.\nGraco filed under seal with its reply the transcripts of\nBretschger’s and Troutman’s depositions. One day before\nthe July 6, 2017 oral hearing, Kolcraft filed under seal an\nunredacted version of the Inventor Declaration attaching\n\n\n\n 1 Kolcraft filed the same Patent Owner’s Response\nfor each IPR.\n\fKOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S 5\nPRODUCTS, INC.\n\n\nthe exhibits in paper form. Kolcraft did not file with the\nBoard the computer files of the exhibits containing the\nmetadata showing the purported dates of conception. Dur-\ning the oral hearing before the Board, Kolcraft admitted\nthat the unredacted version of the Inventor Declaration\nwas “not in the record.” J.A. 2006.\n At trial, the Board addressed whether Chen ’393 qual-\nifies as prior art to the patents-in-suit and whether the pa-\ntents-in-suit are obvious in view of Chen ’393. The Board\nconcluded that Chen ’393 is prior art because Kolcraft\nfailed to show that conception, diligence, and reduction to\npractice of the ’970 and ’231 patents occurred before Chen\n’393 was filed. The Board also found that the testimony of\ninventors Bretschger and Troutman—explaining that they\nconceived of the play yard invention before the effective fil-\ning date of Chen ’393—was not corroborated by non-inven-\ntor testimony, documents, or other evidence. Notably, the\nBoard relied on the redacted version of the Inventor Decla-\nration and did not take into account inventor deposition\ntestimony of prior conception because the Board deemed\nKolcraft’s reliance on inventor deposition testimony to be\nwaived as it was raised for the first time at oral hearing.\nThe Board also determined that the patents-in-suit were\nobvious in view of Chen ’393.\n Kolcraft timely appealed to this court. We have juris-\ndiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).\n DISCUSSION\n On appeal, Kolcraft does not contest that, if we agree\nthat Chen ’393 is prior art, then the ’970 and ’231 patents\nare obvious. Kolcraft instead challenges whether the\nBoard erred in finding that Troutman and Bretschger did\nnot conceive of the inventions of the ’970 and ’231 patents\nbefore the filing of Chen ’393 and that they did not exercise\nreasonable diligence or reduce to practice the patented in-\nventions before January 7, 2004.\n\f6 KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S\n PRODUCTS, INC.\n\n\n This case turns on the corroboration of inventor testi-\nmony. Only if there is sufficient corroboration do we ad-\ndress whether Troutman and Bretschger conceived of the\npatented inventions prior to January 7, 2004, the date\nChen ’393 was filed.\n Inventor testimony of conception must be corroborated\nby other, independent information. Apator Miitors ApS v.\nKamstrup A/S, 887 F.3d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing\nMahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir.\n1996); Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1032–33 (Fed. Cir.\n1989)). Whether there is sufficient corroboration is gov-\nerned by a “rule of reason” analysis, which requires all per-\ntinent evidence to be examined to determine whether the\ninventor’s testimony is credible. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d\n1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Kridl v. McCormick, 105 F.3d\n1446, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1997).\n Conception is “the formation, in the mind of the inven-\ntor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and\noperative invention, as it is thereafter to be applied in prac-\ntice.” REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, 841 F.3d\n954, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Cole-\nman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); see also\nHoop v. Hoop, 279 F.3d 1004, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (stating\nthat the standard for inventorship for design patents is the\nsame as that for utility patents). Conception is a question\nof law premised on underlying factual findings. In re\nVerHoef, 888 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Apator, 887\nF.3d at 1295. Sufficient corroboration is one of those fac-\ntual findings. REG Synthetic, 841 F.3d at 958. We review\nthe Board’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual find-\nings for substantial evidence. Apator, 887 F.3d at 1295.\n Kolcraft relies on inventor deposition testimony, the\nInventor Declaration, and Exhibits A–H to show that the\ninventors of the ’970 and ’231 patents conceived and dili-\ngently reduced to practice the patented inventions before\nJanuary 7, 2004. All cited evidence of prior conception,\n\fKOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S 7\nPRODUCTS, INC.\n\n\nhowever, originated with the inventors of the ’970 and ’231\npatents. The Board, in considering only the redacted In-\nventor Declaration, found that Exhibits A–H and the In-\nventor Declaration “are undated and find identification, if\nat all, only via the conclusory and uncorroborated testi-\nmony of the inventors.” J.A. 40. There is no evidence in\nthe record independently corroborating the inventors’ al-\nleged conception prior to Chen ’393. See Apator, 887 F.3d\nat 1295 (stating that “evidence of corroboration must not\ndepend solely on the inventor himself” (quoting Cooper v.\nGoldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1998))). There-\nfore, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that\nthe Inventor Declaration and Exhibits A–H do not corrob-\norate dates of prior conception sufficient to antedate Chen\n’393.\n Kolcraft argues that the Board should have considered\nboth the unredacted Inventor Declaration and the inventor\ndeposition testimony of prior conception in its Final Writ-\nten Decision. That the Board did not consider the unre-\ndacted Inventor Declaration or inventor deposition\ntestimony (even if not waived) is immaterial here because\nboth are supported solely by the inventors themselves.\n In the same vein, specifics regarding Exhibits A–H are\nsupported solely by Troutman and Bretschger. The inven-\ntors declare that the drawings and prototypes depicted in\nExhibits A–H were created on “a date prior to January 7,\n2004.” J.A. 1182. But these dates are supported only by\ninventor testimony. Therefore, Exhibits A–H fail to inde-\npendently corroborate any inventor testimony showing\nprior conception. See Hahn, 892 F.2d at 1032–33 (“The in-\nventor, however, must provide independent corroborating\nevidence in addition to his own statements and docu-\nments.”); Kridl, 105 F.3d at 1450 (stating that corrobora-\ntion is “independent confirmation of the inventor’s\ntestimony”).\n\f8 KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S\n PRODUCTS, INC.\n\n\n Kolcraft contends that Exhibits A–H do not need to be\ncorroborated by non-inventor testimony or independent ev-\nidence because they are “physical exhibit[s]” that are self-\nexplanatory. Appellant Br. 28–29. Indeed, the court is ca-\npable of comparing the photos and sketches of the various\nplay yards illustrated in Exhibits A–H with the claimed in-\nvention, but the fact remains that these exhibits are un-\ndated and lack any showing of authorship. The evidence\nas to the dates of creation of these Exhibits is found only in\nthe Inventor Declaration and not in the Exhibits them-\nselves.\n Kolcraft also argues that the metadata associated with\nthe Exhibits shows the dates when they were created. Yet\nthe metadata is not part of the record. The only other dis-\ncussion of metadata as possible corroborating evidence is\nfound in the deposition testimony of inventor Troutman,\nwhich is insufficient to corroborate inventor testimony of\nprior conception. See Chen v. Bouchard, 347 F.3d 1299,\n1310 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Evidence of the inventive facts must\nnot rest alone on the testimony of the inventor himself.”);\nsee also Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir.\n2002) (stating that “the physical evidence in this case may\nnot single-handedly corroborate” inventor testimony).\n We addressed the question of inventor corroboration in\nApator, 887 F.3d at 1293. There, we concluded that inven-\ntor testimony of prior conception was not sufficiently cor-\nroborated because all supporting evidence depended solely\non the inventor. Id. at 1295–96. The inventor provided a\ndeclaration in which he stated that he conceived of his in-\nvention before the effective filing date of the prior art. Id.\nat 1294. To corroborate the inventor testimony, patent\nowner Apator Miitors ApS (“Apator”) also proffered three\nunwitnessed emails from the inventor to third parties\ndated before the effective filing date of the prior art and\nvarious drawings of the claimed invention with file naming\nconventions indicating dates of creation before the filing\ndate of the prior art. Id. at 1294–95. The emails\n\fKOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S 9\nPRODUCTS, INC.\n\n\npurportedly contained attachments showing prior concep-\ntion, but there was no indication from the email headers\nthat a file was attached. Id. at 1296–97. Nor did the bodies\nof the emails indicate the content of the attachments. Id.\nat 1296. For each of the emails and drawings, the only rec-\nord evidence explaining the content of the attachments and\nthe date of the drawings came from the Inventor Declara-\ntion. Id. at 1296–97. Without the Inventor Declaration,\nthe court could not independently discern whether a file\nwas attached to the emails, the content of any attachments,\nor the date the drawings were created. Id. As a result, we\nheld that Apator failed to provide evidence corroborating\ninventor testimony of prior conception. Id. at 1297.\n Here, the purportedly corroborating evidence is even\nweaker than the evidence presented in Apator. The record\ncontains only the Inventor Declaration, inventor deposition\ntestimony, and undated photos attached to the Inventor\nDeclaration. Only the Inventor Declaration, i.e., inventor\ntestimony, supports the purported dates showing concep-\ntion prior to January 7, 2004. Inventor testimony alone\ncannot prove conception. NFC Tech., LLC v. Matal, 871\nF.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d\n1187, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Considering all the evidence\nin the record, a reasonable mind could conclude that\nKolcraft failed to independently corroborate inventor testi-\nmony of prior conception. Accordingly, we hold that sub-\nstantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that\nKolcraft has not established conception prior to the effec-\ntive filing date of Chen ’393. Because prior conception has\nnot been established, we need not address the issue of dili-\ngence. See Apator, 887 F.3d at 1297.\n CONCLUSION\n We have considered Kolcraft’s remaining arguments\nand find them unpersuasive and immaterial to the ques-\ntion of corroboration. We hold that substantial evidence\nsupports the Board’s finding that Kolcraft failed to\n\f10 KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S\n PRODUCTS, INC.\n\n\ncorroborate inventor testimony of prior conception. Accord-\ningly, we affirm the Board’s determination that the ’970\nand ’231 patents are unpatentable as obvious in view of\nChen ’393.\n AFFIRMED\n COSTS\n No costs.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC.,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC.,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1259, 2018-1260\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016-\\n00816, IPR2016-00826.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 2, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n KYLE WALLENBERG, Niro McAndrews LLC, Chicago,\\nIL, argued for appellant. Also represented by RAYMOND P.\\nNIRO, JR.\\n\\n JOHN W. HARBIN, Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC, At-\\nlanta, GA, argued for appellee. Also represented by\\nGREGORY JOSEPH CARLIN, WALTER HILL LEVIE, III, WARREN\\nJAMES THOMAS.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before MOORE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f2 KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S\\n PRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\nREYNA, Circuit Judge.\\n Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. appeals the decision of the\\nUnited States Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding U.S.\\nDesign Patent Nos. D604,970 and D616,231 unpatentable\\nas obvious in light of the prior art. The primary issue on\\nappeal is whether Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. antedated the\\nprior art with evidence of its prior conception, diligence,\\nand reduction to practice. The Board determined that\\nKolcraft Enterprises, Inc. did not. We agree. Accordingly,\\nwe affirm.\\n BACKGROUND\\n Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. (“Kolcraft”) is the assignee of\\nU.S. Design Patent No. D604,970 S (“the ’970 patent”) and\\nU.S. Design Patent No. D616,231 S (“the ’231 patent”). The\\n’970 and ’231 patents are both titled “Exposed Legs for a\\nPlay Yard” and have an effective filing date of November 5,\\n2004. Each patent has one claim.\\n The ’970 patent contains seven figures. Figures 1 and\\n2 are depicted below.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nJ.A. 48–49. Figure 1 is “a perspective view of exposed legs\\nfor a play yard,” and Figure 2 is “a front view of the design\\nof FIG. 1.” J.A. 46, 48–49. The ’970 patent also states that\\n“[t]here is no fabric covering the exposed legs shown in any\\n\\fKOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S 3\\nPRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\nof FIGS. 1–7.” J.A. 46. The dashed lines do not form part\\nof the claimed design. See MPEP § 1503.02 (9th ed. 2018).\\n The ’231 patent has five figures. Figures 1 and 2 are\\nprovided below. Figure 1 is “a perspective view of a playard\\nwith exposed legs.” J.A. 52. Figure 2 is “a front view of the\\nplayard of FIG. 1.” Id. “There is no fabric covering the\\nexposed legs shown in any of FIGS. 1–5.” Id.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n On March 30, 2016, Graco Children’s Products, Inc.\\n(“Graco”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”)\\nchallenging the ’970 patent. A day later, Graco filed a sec-\\nond IPR petition challenging the ’231 patent. Graco pro-\\nposed eleven grounds of unpatentability for each patent,\\nincluding a ground for each patent that the claim is obvious\\nin light of U.S. Design Patent No. D494,393 assigned to\\nChen (“Chen ’393”). The United States Patent Trial and\\nAppeal Board (“Board”) instituted a single trial addressing\\nboth patents on the asserted grounds related to Chen ’393.\\n Kolcraft did not submit a preliminary owner response\\nto Graco’s petitions, but it filed a six-page Patent Owner\\n\\f4 KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S\\n PRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\nResponse 1 after the Board instituted trial. In its Patent\\nOwner Response, Kolcraft included a declaration signed by\\ninventors Damon Oliver Casati Troutman and Edward B.\\nBretschger (“Inventor Declaration”), with Exhibits A–H\\nappended to the declaration. The Patent Owner Response\\nargued that at least one of Exhibits A–H depicted features\\nof the claimed invention identified by the Board: (1) curved\\nlegs that bow outward; (2) no fabric covering the exposed\\nlegs; and (3) outward flaring at the top of the legs. Exhibits\\nA–H are a collection of photos and sketches of play yards\\nand instructions for assembling the prototype of the play\\nyard that Troutman and Bretschger claim to have in-\\nvented. Neither the Inventor Declaration discussing the\\nexhibits nor the exhibits themselves included specific dates\\nof conception. The Inventor Declaration redacted the dates\\nwhen the exhibits were purportedly created, using blank\\nspaces where relevant dates would have been to show that\\nthe inventions described in the ’970 and ’231 patents were\\nconceived of and reduced to practice on “a date prior to Jan-\\nuary 7, 2004,” the effective filing date of Chen ’393. J.A.\\n1181–84.\\n In March 2017, Graco deposed inventors Troutman and\\nBretschger. Before the depositions took place, Kolcraft pro-\\nvided Graco with an unredacted version of the inventors’\\ndeclaration, where the blank spaces were replaced with al-\\nleged dates of conception and reduction to practice. When\\nquestioned about the source of these dates, inventor Trout-\\nman testified that the dates were based on metadata asso-\\nciated with the computer files containing the exhibits.\\nGraco filed under seal with its reply the transcripts of\\nBretschger’s and Troutman’s depositions. One day before\\nthe July 6, 2017 oral hearing, Kolcraft filed under seal an\\nunredacted version of the Inventor Declaration attaching\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Kolcraft filed the same Patent Owner’s Response\\nfor each IPR.\\n\\fKOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S 5\\nPRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\nthe exhibits in paper form. Kolcraft did not file with the\\nBoard the computer files of the exhibits containing the\\nmetadata showing the purported dates of conception. Dur-\\ning the oral hearing before the Board, Kolcraft admitted\\nthat the unredacted version of the Inventor Declaration\\nwas “not in the record.” J.A. 2006.\\n At trial, the Board addressed whether Chen ’393 qual-\\nifies as prior art to the patents-in-suit and whether the pa-\\ntents-in-suit are obvious in view of Chen ’393. The Board\\nconcluded that Chen ’393 is prior art because Kolcraft\\nfailed to show that conception, diligence, and reduction to\\npractice of the ’970 and ’231 patents occurred before Chen\\n’393 was filed. The Board also found that the testimony of\\ninventors Bretschger and Troutman—explaining that they\\nconceived of the play yard invention before the effective fil-\\ning date of Chen ’393—was not corroborated by non-inven-\\ntor testimony, documents, or other evidence. Notably, the\\nBoard relied on the redacted version of the Inventor Decla-\\nration and did not take into account inventor deposition\\ntestimony of prior conception because the Board deemed\\nKolcraft’s reliance on inventor deposition testimony to be\\nwaived as it was raised for the first time at oral hearing.\\nThe Board also determined that the patents-in-suit were\\nobvious in view of Chen ’393.\\n Kolcraft timely appealed to this court. We have juris-\\ndiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).\\n DISCUSSION\\n On appeal, Kolcraft does not contest that, if we agree\\nthat Chen ’393 is prior art, then the ’970 and ’231 patents\\nare obvious. Kolcraft instead challenges whether the\\nBoard erred in finding that Troutman and Bretschger did\\nnot conceive of the inventions of the ’970 and ’231 patents\\nbefore the filing of Chen ’393 and that they did not exercise\\nreasonable diligence or reduce to practice the patented in-\\nventions before January 7, 2004.\\n\\f6 KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S\\n PRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\n This case turns on the corroboration of inventor testi-\\nmony. Only if there is sufficient corroboration do we ad-\\ndress whether Troutman and Bretschger conceived of the\\npatented inventions prior to January 7, 2004, the date\\nChen ’393 was filed.\\n Inventor testimony of conception must be corroborated\\nby other, independent information. Apator Miitors ApS v.\\nKamstrup A/S, 887 F.3d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing\\nMahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir.\\n1996); Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1032–33 (Fed. Cir.\\n1989)). Whether there is sufficient corroboration is gov-\\nerned by a “rule of reason” analysis, which requires all per-\\ntinent evidence to be examined to determine whether the\\ninventor’s testimony is credible. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d\\n1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Kridl v. McCormick, 105 F.3d\\n1446, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1997).\\n Conception is “the formation, in the mind of the inven-\\ntor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and\\noperative invention, as it is thereafter to be applied in prac-\\ntice.” REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, 841 F.3d\\n954, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Cole-\\nman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); see also\\nHoop v. Hoop, 279 F.3d 1004, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (stating\\nthat the standard for inventorship for design patents is the\\nsame as that for utility patents). Conception is a question\\nof law premised on underlying factual findings. In re\\nVerHoef, 888 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Apator, 887\\nF.3d at 1295. Sufficient corroboration is one of those fac-\\ntual findings. REG Synthetic, 841 F.3d at 958. We review\\nthe Board’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual find-\\nings for substantial evidence. Apator, 887 F.3d at 1295.\\n Kolcraft relies on inventor deposition testimony, the\\nInventor Declaration, and Exhibits A–H to show that the\\ninventors of the ’970 and ’231 patents conceived and dili-\\ngently reduced to practice the patented inventions before\\nJanuary 7, 2004. All cited evidence of prior conception,\\n\\fKOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S 7\\nPRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\nhowever, originated with the inventors of the ’970 and ’231\\npatents. The Board, in considering only the redacted In-\\nventor Declaration, found that Exhibits A–H and the In-\\nventor Declaration “are undated and find identification, if\\nat all, only via the conclusory and uncorroborated testi-\\nmony of the inventors.” J.A. 40. There is no evidence in\\nthe record independently corroborating the inventors’ al-\\nleged conception prior to Chen ’393. See Apator, 887 F.3d\\nat 1295 (stating that “evidence of corroboration must not\\ndepend solely on the inventor himself” (quoting Cooper v.\\nGoldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1998))). There-\\nfore, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that\\nthe Inventor Declaration and Exhibits A–H do not corrob-\\norate dates of prior conception sufficient to antedate Chen\\n’393.\\n Kolcraft argues that the Board should have considered\\nboth the unredacted Inventor Declaration and the inventor\\ndeposition testimony of prior conception in its Final Writ-\\nten Decision. That the Board did not consider the unre-\\ndacted Inventor Declaration or inventor deposition\\ntestimony (even if not waived) is immaterial here because\\nboth are supported solely by the inventors themselves.\\n In the same vein, specifics regarding Exhibits A–H are\\nsupported solely by Troutman and Bretschger. The inven-\\ntors declare that the drawings and prototypes depicted in\\nExhibits A–H were created on “a date prior to January 7,\\n2004.” J.A. 1182. But these dates are supported only by\\ninventor testimony. Therefore, Exhibits A–H fail to inde-\\npendently corroborate any inventor testimony showing\\nprior conception. See Hahn, 892 F.2d at 1032–33 (“The in-\\nventor, however, must provide independent corroborating\\nevidence in addition to his own statements and docu-\\nments.”); Kridl, 105 F.3d at 1450 (stating that corrobora-\\ntion is “independent confirmation of the inventor’s\\ntestimony”).\\n\\f8 KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S\\n PRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\n Kolcraft contends that Exhibits A–H do not need to be\\ncorroborated by non-inventor testimony or independent ev-\\nidence because they are “physical exhibit[s]” that are self-\\nexplanatory. Appellant Br. 28–29. Indeed, the court is ca-\\npable of comparing the photos and sketches of the various\\nplay yards illustrated in Exhibits A–H with the claimed in-\\nvention, but the fact remains that these exhibits are un-\\ndated and lack any showing of authorship. The evidence\\nas to the dates of creation of these Exhibits is found only in\\nthe Inventor Declaration and not in the Exhibits them-\\nselves.\\n Kolcraft also argues that the metadata associated with\\nthe Exhibits shows the dates when they were created. Yet\\nthe metadata is not part of the record. The only other dis-\\ncussion of metadata as possible corroborating evidence is\\nfound in the deposition testimony of inventor Troutman,\\nwhich is insufficient to corroborate inventor testimony of\\nprior conception. See Chen v. Bouchard, 347 F.3d 1299,\\n1310 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Evidence of the inventive facts must\\nnot rest alone on the testimony of the inventor himself.”);\\nsee also Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir.\\n2002) (stating that “the physical evidence in this case may\\nnot single-handedly corroborate” inventor testimony).\\n We addressed the question of inventor corroboration in\\nApator, 887 F.3d at 1293. There, we concluded that inven-\\ntor testimony of prior conception was not sufficiently cor-\\nroborated because all supporting evidence depended solely\\non the inventor. Id. at 1295–96. The inventor provided a\\ndeclaration in which he stated that he conceived of his in-\\nvention before the effective filing date of the prior art. Id.\\nat 1294. To corroborate the inventor testimony, patent\\nowner Apator Miitors ApS (“Apator”) also proffered three\\nunwitnessed emails from the inventor to third parties\\ndated before the effective filing date of the prior art and\\nvarious drawings of the claimed invention with file naming\\nconventions indicating dates of creation before the filing\\ndate of the prior art. Id. at 1294–95. The emails\\n\\fKOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S 9\\nPRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\npurportedly contained attachments showing prior concep-\\ntion, but there was no indication from the email headers\\nthat a file was attached. Id. at 1296–97. Nor did the bodies\\nof the emails indicate the content of the attachments. Id.\\nat 1296. For each of the emails and drawings, the only rec-\\nord evidence explaining the content of the attachments and\\nthe date of the drawings came from the Inventor Declara-\\ntion. Id. at 1296–97. Without the Inventor Declaration,\\nthe court could not independently discern whether a file\\nwas attached to the emails, the content of any attachments,\\nor the date the drawings were created. Id. As a result, we\\nheld that Apator failed to provide evidence corroborating\\ninventor testimony of prior conception. Id. at 1297.\\n Here, the purportedly corroborating evidence is even\\nweaker than the evidence presented in Apator. The record\\ncontains only the Inventor Declaration, inventor deposition\\ntestimony, and undated photos attached to the Inventor\\nDeclaration. Only the Inventor Declaration, i.e., inventor\\ntestimony, supports the purported dates showing concep-\\ntion prior to January 7, 2004. Inventor testimony alone\\ncannot prove conception. NFC Tech., LLC v. Matal, 871\\nF.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d\\n1187, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Considering all the evidence\\nin the record, a reasonable mind could conclude that\\nKolcraft failed to independently corroborate inventor testi-\\nmony of prior conception. Accordingly, we hold that sub-\\nstantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that\\nKolcraft has not established conception prior to the effec-\\ntive filing date of Chen ’393. Because prior conception has\\nnot been established, we need not address the issue of dili-\\ngence. See Apator, 887 F.3d at 1297.\\n CONCLUSION\\n We have considered Kolcraft’s remaining arguments\\nand find them unpersuasive and immaterial to the ques-\\ntion of corroboration. We hold that substantial evidence\\nsupports the Board’s finding that Kolcraft failed to\\n\\f10 KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GRACO CHILDREN'S\\n PRODUCTS, INC.\\n\\n\\ncorroborate inventor testimony of prior conception. Accord-\\ningly, we affirm the Board’s determination that the ’970\\nand ’231 patents are unpatentable as obvious in view of\\nChen ’393.\\n AFFIRMED\\n COSTS\\n No costs.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3484,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4636556,"string":"4,636,556"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Oxford University Innovation LTD., Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Wissenschaften E v. Plaintiffs-Appellants v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, Dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, Mayo Clinic, Defendants-Appellees"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-03"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"2017-2508"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD\\n UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCK-\\n GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER\\n WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA\\nMAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC,\\n Defendants-Appellees\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2508\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Massachusetts in No. 1:15-cv-40075-IT, Judge\\nIndira Talwani.\\n ______________________\\n\\n ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC\\n ______________________\\n\\n ADAM GAHTAN, Fenwick & West, New York, NY, filed a\\npetition for rehearing en banc for plaintiffs-appellants.\\nAlso represented by ERIC M. MAJCHRZAK, VANESSA PARK-\\nTHOMPSON; ANDREW JOSEPH KABAT, EMMETT J. MCMAHON,\\nRobins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN; DIMITRIOS T.\\nDRIVAS, White & Case LLP, New York, NY.\\n\\n JONATHAN ELLIOT SINGER, Fish & Richardson, PC, San\\n\\n2 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nDiego, CA, filed a response to the petition for defendants-\\nappellees. Also represented by JOHN CAMERON ADKISSON,\\nELIZABETH M. FLANAGAN, PHILLIP GOTER, DEANNA JEAN\\nREICHEL, Minneapolis, MN.\\n\\n MELISSA A. BRAND, Biotechnology Innovation Organi-\\nzation, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Biotechnology In-\\nnovation Organization, CropLife International,\\nPharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America,\\nWisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. Also represented\\nby HANSJORG SAUER. Amicus curiae Biotechnology Inno-\\nvation Organization also represented by BRIAN PAUL\\nBARRETT, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN. Amicus\\ncuriae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of\\nAmerica also represented by DAVID EVAN KORN, Pharma-\\nceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of Amer-\\nica, Washington, DC.\\n\\n MATTHEW JAMES DOWD, Dowd Scheffel PLLC, Wash-\\nington, DC, for amici curiae Richard A. Epstein, Christo-\\npher Michael Holman, Adam Mossoff, Kristen J. Osenga,\\nMichael Risch, Ted M. Sichelman, Brenda M. Simon. Also\\nrepresented by ROBERT JAMES SCHEFFEL.\\n\\n SHERRY M. KNOWLES, Knowles Intellectual Property\\nStrategies, LLC, Atlanta, GA, for amici curiae Freenome\\nHoldings Inc., Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Also repre-\\nsented by MEREDITH MARTIN ADDY, AddyHart P.C., At-\\nlanta, GA.\\n ______________________\\n\\nBefore PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE,\\n O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES,\\n and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\\n LOURIE, Circuit Judge, with whom REYNA and CHEN,\\n Circuit Judges, join, concurs in the denial of the petition\\n for rehearing en banc.\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 3\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\n HUGHES, Circuit Judge, with whom PROST, Chief\\n Judge, and TARANTO, Circuit Judge, join, concurs in the\\n denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.\\n DYK, Circuit Judge, with whom HUGHES, Circuit\\nJudge, joins, and with whom CHEN, Circuit Judge, joins as\\n to Parts IV, V, and VI, concurs in the denial of the peti-\\n tion for rehearing en banc.\", \"author\": \"PER CURIAM\"}, {\"type\": \"concurrence\", \"author\": \"CHEN\", \"text\": \"CHEN, Circuit Judge, concurs in the denial of the peti-\\n tion for rehearing en banc.\\n MOORE, Circuit Judge, with whom O’MALLEY,\\n WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges, join, dissents from\\n the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.\\n NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, with whom WALLACH, Cir-\\n cuit Judge, joins, dissents from the denial of the petition\\n for rehearing en banc.\\n STOLL, Circuit Judge, with whom WALLACH, Circuit\\n Judge, joins, dissents from the denial of the petition for\\n rehearing en banc.\\nO’MALLEY, Circuit Judge, dissents from the denial of the\\n petition for rehearing en banc.\\nPER CURIAM.\\n ORDER\\n A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by appellants\\nAthena Diagnostics, Inc., Oxford University Innovation\\nLtd., and the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der\\nWissenschaften E.V. A response to the petition was invited\\nby the court and filed by appellees Mayo Collaborative Ser-\\nvices, LLC and Mayo Clinic. Several motions for leave to\\nfile amici curiae briefs were filed and granted by the court.\\nThe petition for rehearing, response, and amici curiae\\nbriefs were first referred to the panel that heard the ap-\\npeal, and thereafter, to the circuit judges who are in regu-\\nlar active service. A poll was requested, taken, and failed.\\n\\n4 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\n Upon consideration thereof,\\n IT IS ORDERED THAT:\\n 1) The petition for panel rehearing is denied.\\n 2) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.\\n 3) The mandate of the court will issue on July 10,\\n 2019.\\n\\n\\n FOR THE COURT\\n\\n July 3, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner\\n Date Peter R. Marksteiner\\n Clerk of Court\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD\\n UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCK-\\n GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER\\n WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA\\nMAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC,\\n Defendants-Appellees\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2508\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Massachusetts in No. 1:15-cv-40075-IT, Judge\\nIndira Talwani.\\n ______________________\\nLOURIE, Circuit Judge, with whom REYNA and CHEN, Cir-\"}, {\"author\": \"cuit Judges, join, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"cuit Judges, join, concurring in the denial of the petition\\nfor rehearing en banc.\\n I concur in the court’s decision not to rehear this case\\nen banc. In my view, we can accomplish little in doing so,\\nas we are bound by the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo.\\nSome of us have already expressed our concerns over cur-\\nrent precedent. E.g., Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Col-\\nlaborative Servs., LLC, 915 F.3d 743, 753 n.4 (Fed. Cir.\\n2019); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 809 F.3d\\n1282, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Lourie, J., concurring in the\\n\\n2 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\ndenial of rehearing en banc); id. at 1287 (Dyk, J., concur-\\nring in the denial of rehearing en banc).\\n If I could write on a clean slate, I would write as an\\nexception to patent eligibility, as respects natural laws,\\nonly claims directed to the natural law itself, e.g., E=mc2,\\nF=ma, Boyle’s Law, Maxwell’s Equations, etc. I would not\\nexclude uses or detection of natural laws. The laws of an-\\nticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, and written de-\\nscription provide other filters to determine what is\\npatentable.\\n But we do not write here on a clean slate; we are bound\\nby Supreme Court precedent. In Mayo Collaborative Ser-\\nvices v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., the claims at issue\\nwere held by the Court to be directed to the relationship\\nbetween the concentration of metabolites in the blood and\\nthe likelihood that a drug dose will be ineffective, which it\\nreferred to as a law of nature. 566 U.S. 66, 74–75, 77\\n(2012). The other steps—administering a drug and detect-\\ning the level of a specific metabolite—added only “[p]urely\\n‘conventional or obvious’ ‘[pre]-solution activity’” that was\\n“not sufficient to transform an unpatentable law of nature\\ninto a patent-eligible application of such a law.” Id. at 79\\n(second alteration in original) (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437\\nU.S. 584, 590 (1978)); see Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593,\\n610–11 (2010) (“[T]he prohibition against patenting ab-\\nstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit\\nthe use of the formula to a particular technological envi-\\nronment’ or adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’”\\n(quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191–92 (1981)));\\nFlook, 437 U.S. at 590 (“The notion that post-solution ac-\\ntivity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can\\ntransform an unpatentable principle into a patentable pro-\\ncess exalts form over substance.”). Because the claims re-\\ncited only what the Court called a natural law together\\nwith well-understood, conventional activity, the Court con-\\ncluded the claims were ineligible under § 101. Mayo, 566\\nU.S. at 73, 79–80.\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 3\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\n In applying Mayo, we have accordingly held claims fo-\\ncused on detecting new and useful natural laws with con-\\nventional steps to be ineligible. E.g., Cleveland Clinic\\nFound. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352,\\n1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2621 (2018);\\nAriosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371,\\n1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2511 (2016).\\nIn Cleveland Clinic, the claims recited a specific assay to\\ndetect the protein MPO, the enzyme-linked immuno-\\nsorbent assay. 859 F.3d at 1357–58, 1362. Ariosa similarly\\ninvolved a specific technique to amplify and detect DNA,\\nthe polymerase chain reaction. 788 F.3d at 1377. But in\\nboth cases, the patents’ specifications described these tech-\\nniques as well-understood and conventional. Cleveland\\nClinic, 859 F.3d at 1355; Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1377. We con-\\ncluded that using these routine assays to detect new natu-\\nral phenomena did not transform the claims into patent\\neligible applications. Cleveland Clinic, 859 F.3d at 1362–\\n63; Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1376–77.\\n In contrast, new method of treatment patents do not\\nfall prey to Mayo’s prohibition. E.g., Vanda Pharm. Inc. v.\\nWest-Ward Pharm. Int’l Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117, 1136 (Fed.\\nCir. 2018). Nor have unconventional arrangements of\\nknown laboratory techniques, even if directed to a natural\\nlaw. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d\\n1042, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2016). But this case involves neither\\nscenario. Athena’s claims recite observing a natural law\\nusing a radioimmunoassay that the specification describes\\nas “standard” and “known per se in the art.” U.S. Patent\\n7,267,820 col. 3 ll. 33–37, col. 4 ll. 10–12. The claims do not\\nrecite a new method of treatment or an unconventional\\ncombination of steps to detect the natural law. The only\\nunconventional aspect is the inventors’ discovery of what\\nthe Supreme Court would call the natural law—the corre-\\nlation between MuSK autoantibodies and the neurological\\ndisorder myasthenia gravis—but we cannot premise eligi-\\nbility solely on the natural law’s novelty. Mayo, 566 U.S.\\n\\n4 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nat 73 (concluding that “the steps in the claimed processes\\n(apart from the natural laws themselves) involve well-un-\\nderstood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged\\nin by researchers in the field” (emphasis added)); Flook,\\n437 U.S. at 591–92 (“[T]he novelty of the mathematical al-\\ngorithm is not a determining factor at all” and “is treated\\nas though it were a familiar part of the prior art.”). Under\\nSupreme Court precedent, I do not believe that specific yet\\npurely conventional detection steps impart eligibility to a\\nclaim that otherwise only sets forth what the Court has\\nheld is a natural law. That is the situation presented in\\nAriosa, Cleveland Clinic, and now Athena. Accordingly, as\\nlong as the Court’s precedent stands, the only possible so-\\nlution lies in the pens of claim drafters or legislators. We\\nare neither.\\n Amici and others have complained that our eligibility\\nprecedent is confused. However, our cases are consistent.\\nThey have distinguished between new method of treatment\\nclaims and unconventional laboratory techniques, on the\\none hand, and, on the other hand, diagnostic methods that\\nconsist of routine steps to observe the operation of a natu-\\nral law, a clear line. Beyond that, I do not see a way clear\\nto distinguish Mayo in a useful, principled, fashion. Soft-\\nware is another matter, but such patents are not before us\\nhere.\\n I therefore concur in the decision of the court not to\\ntake this case en banc because I do not believe we can con-\\nvincingly distinguish Mayo in this case.\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD\\n UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCK-\\n GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER\\n WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA\\nMAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC,\\n Defendants-Appellees\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2508\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Massachusetts in No. 1:15-cv-40075-IT, Judge\\nIndira Talwani.\\n ______________________\\n\\nHUGHES, Circuit Judge, with whom PROST, Chief Judge,\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4413809/\", \"author_raw\": \"cuit Judges, join, concurring\"}, {\"author\": \"and TARANTO, Circuit Judge, join, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"and TARANTO, Circuit Judge, join, concurring in the denial\\nof the petition for rehearing en banc.\\n The multiple concurring and dissenting opinions re-\\ngarding the denial of en banc rehearing in this case are il-\\nlustrative of how fraught the issue of § 101 eligibility,\\nespecially as applied to medical diagnostics patents, is. I\\nagree that the language in Mayo, as later reinforced in Al-\\nice, forecloses this court from adopting an approach or\\nreaching a result different from the panel majority’s. I also\\n\\n2 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nagree, however, that the bottom line for diagnostics patents\\nis problematic. But this is not a problem that we can solve.\\nAs an inferior appellate court, we are bound by the Su-\\npreme Court.\\n I, for one, would welcome further explication of eligibil-\\nity standards in the area of diagnostics patents. Such\\nstandards could permit patenting of essential life saving\\ninventions based on natural laws while providing a reason-\\nable and measured way to differentiate between overly\\nbroad patents claiming natural laws and truly worthy spe-\\ncific applications. Such an explication might come from the\\nSupreme Court. Or it might come from Congress, with its\\ndistinctive role in making the factual and policy determi-\\nnations relevant to setting the proper balance of innovation\\nincentives under patent law.\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD\\n UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCK-\\n GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER\\n WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA\\nMAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC,\\n Defendants-Appellees\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2508\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Massachusetts in No. 1:15-cv-40075-IT, Judge\\nIndira Talwani.\\n ______________________\\n\\nDYK, Circuit Judge, with whom HUGHES, Circuit Judge,\\njoins, and with whom CHEN, Circuit Judge, joins as to Parts\\nIV, V, and VI, concurring in the denial of the petition for\\nrehearing en banc.\\n I\\n In the realm of abstract ideas, the Mayo/Alice frame-\\nwork has successfully screened out claims that few would\\ncontend should be patent eligible, for example, those that\\nmerely apply well-known business methods and other\\n\\n2 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nprocesses using computers or the Internet. 1 The Mayo/Al-\\nice framework has thus proven to be both valuable and ef-\\nfective at invalidating overly broad, non-inventive claims\\nthat would effectively “grant a monopoly over an abstract\\nidea.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216\\n(2014) (quoting Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611–612\\n(2010)). As the Supreme Court has recognized, the concern\\nwith such patents is that they would “‘inhibit further\\n\\n\\n 1 See, e.g., Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921\\nF.3d 1378, 1384–85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (invalidating claims\\ndirected to “providing a trader with additional financial in-\\nformation to facilitate market trades” using “a generic com-\\nputer”); SAP Am., Inc., v. Investpic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161,\\n1167–69 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (invalidating claims directed to\\n“the selection and mathematical analysis of [investment]\\ninformation, followed by reporting or display of the results”\\nusing “off-the-shelf computer technology”); Credit Ac-\\nceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1054–57\\n(Fed. Cir. 2017) (invalidating claims directed to “processing\\nan application for financing a purchase” using “generic\\ncomputer components”); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom\\nS.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–55 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (invalidating\\nclaims directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and\\ndisplaying certain results” using “off-the-shelf, conven-\\ntional computer, network, and display technology”); Intel-\\nlectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363,\\n1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (invalidating claims directed to\\ntailoring advertising to individual customers using a “ge-\\nneric web server with attendant software”); Ultramercial,\\nInc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715–16 (Fed. Cir. 2014)\\n(invalidating a claim directed to “using advertising as an\\nexchange or currency” “on the Internet”); buySAFE, Inc. v.\\nGoogle, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (invali-\\ndating a claim directed to “creating a contractual relation-\\nship” through “online transactions” using “generic”\\ncomputer functionality).\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 3\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\ndiscovery by improperly tying up the future use of’ these\\nbuildings blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (quoting Mayo\\nCollaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66,\\n85 (2012)). At the same time, our § 101 precedent has al-\\nlowed room for claims that do more than recite conven-\\ntional applications of abstract concepts. 2\\n II\\n Despite assertions to the contrary, the doctrines of nov-\\nelty under § 102, obviousness under § 103, and enablement\\nand written description under § 112 cannot adequately\\nguard against the dangers of overclaiming. In Mayo, the\\nSupreme Court rejected the argument that “other statu-\\ntory provisions”—specifically §§ 102, 103, and 112—could\\nadequately “perform th[e] screening function” served by\\n§ 101. 566 U.S. at 89. Although the Court recognized that\\nthe § 101 patent eligibility inquiry “might sometimes over-\\nlap” with considerations of novelty and non-obviousness\\nunder §§ 102 and 103, it concluded that “to shift the patent-\\neligibility inquiry entirely to these later sections risks cre-\\nating significantly greater legal uncertainty, while assum-\\ning that those sections can do work that they are not\\nequipped to do.” Id. at 90. Those sections and § 112 do not\\nadequately address “the risk that a patent on the [natural]\\n\\n\\n 2 See, e.g., Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., 908\\nF.3d 1343, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claim to\\na specific technique for improving computer security\\nagainst unauthorized use of a program was not directed to\\nan abstract idea); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879\\nF.3d 1299, 1303–04 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to\\na “behavior-based virus scan” allowing for more flexible\\nand nuanced virus filtering were not directed to an abstract\\nidea); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336–\\n38 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to self-referential\\ntables that allowed for more efficient launching and adap-\\ntation of databases were not directed to an abstract idea).\\n\\n4 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nlaw would significantly impede future innovation.” Id. at\\n90–91; see also Mark Lemley et al., Life After Bilski, 63\\nStan. L. Rev. 1315, 1329–32 (2011) (outlining differences\\nbetween §§ 101 and 112). Nor do these other provisions\\ntypically allow early stage resolution of the “threshold” is-\\nsue of patent eligibility, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 602, necessary\\nto avoid the costs of lengthy litigation. Thus, § 101 serves\\nan important purpose not served by these other provisions\\nin the Patent Act.\\n A simple example in the area of diagnostic patents il-\\nlustrates this point. If the first person to identify the rela-\\ntionship between a genetic abnormality and a disease had\\nsought a broad patent on a method of searching for genetic\\nabnormalities and determining their relationship to dis-\\nease, the claims would have been neither anticipated nor\\nobvious. Nor is it likely that they would they have been\\ninvalid for lack of enablement (since a representative spe-\\ncies was disclosed) or written description (the overall con-\\nception being in the mind of the inventor). The only barrier\\nto such broad patent claiming is § 101.\\n In fact, one of the diagnostic patents that we have held\\nunpatentable under § 101 had exactly that problem of over-\\nbreadth. In In re BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary\\nCancer Test Patent Litigation, 774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir.\\n2014), we held that genetic testing claims were directed to\\nthe “patent-ineligible abstract idea of comparing BRCA se-\\nquences and determining the existence of alterations” of\\nthe gene. Id. at 763. We noted the breadth of the claims,\\nexplaining that they “are not restricted by the purpose of\\nthe comparison or the alteration being detected,” nor “lim-\\nited to the detection of risk of breast or ovarian cancer.” Id.\\nat 763–64. Indeed, the claims encompassed “comparisons\\nfor purposes other than detection of cancer.” Id.; see also\\nAriosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371,\\n1373–74, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (invalidating claims to\\nmethods of detecting cffDNA in maternal serum or plasma\\nthat encompassed any diagnosis of any disease). What was\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 5\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nclaimed was a broad concept, and we therefore held the\\nclaims ineligible under § 101, though the claims may well\\nhave survived challenge under §§ 102, 103, and 112.\\n III\\n The problem with § 101 arises not in implementing the\\nabstract idea approach of Alice, but rather in implementing\\nthe natural law approach of Mayo. Although Mayo’s frame-\\nwork is sound overall, I share the concerns expressed by\\nmy dissenting colleagues that the Mayo test for patent eli-\\ngibility should leave room for sufficiently specific diagnos-\\ntic patents. But it is the Supreme Court, not this court,\\nthat must reconsider the breadth of Mayo.\\n Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo did not\\nmake all diagnostic claims patent ineligible, as we previ-\\nously held in Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1376–77, Mayo left no\\nroom for us to find typical diagnostic claims patent eligible,\\nabsent some inventive concept at Mayo step two. The panel\\nhere correctly concluded that Mayo controls.\\n The inventors of U.S. Patent 7,267,820 (“the ’820 pa-\\ntent”) discovered that myasthenia gravis (“MG”), a neuro-\\nlogical disorder, can be diagnosed by detecting the presence\\nof MuSK autoantibodies in bodily fluid. See Athena Diag-\\nnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC, 915 F.3d\\n743, 747 (Fed. Cir. 2019). At Mayo step one, the claims are\\ndirected to a natural law: “the correlation between the\\npresence of naturally-occurring MuSK autoantibodies in\\nbodily fluid” and certain neurological diseases like MG. Id.\\nat 750. This is similar to the correlation between “concen-\\ntrations of certain metabolites in the blood and the likeli-\\nhood that a dosage of a thiopurine drug will prove\\nineffective or cause harm,” which the Supreme Court held\\n“sets forth a natural law” in Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77.\\n So too as in Mayo, at step two, the additional steps of\\nthe claims here, though “set forth with some specificity,”\\nAthena, 915 F.3d at 752, “only require standard techniques\\n\\n6 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nto be applied in a standard way” and thus do not supply the\\nrequisite inventive concept, id. at 753. The specification\\nexplains that “[t]he actual steps of detecting autoantibod-\\nies in a sample of bodily fluids may be performed in accord-\\nance with immunological assay techniques known per se in\\nthe art.” Id. at 753–54 (alteration in original). Similarly,\\nin Mayo, adding steps “to determine the level of the rele-\\nvant metabolites in the blood” was held “not sufficient to\\ntransform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eli-\\ngible application” because those steps were “well known in\\nthe art.” 566 U.S. at 79. Therefore, the panel here correctly\\nheld that under the Mayo framework, the claims are not\\npatent eligible under § 101. Athena, 915 F.3d at 746, 756.\\nAnd the Supreme Court has instructed us to follow its prec-\\nedent until the Court itself chooses to expressly overrule\\nit. 3\\n IV\\n It is nonetheless appropriate to point out that there is\\ntension between Mayo and the Supreme Court’s later deci-\\nsion in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad\\n\\n\\n 3 See, e.g., Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236, 252–\\n53 (1998) (“Our decisions remain binding precedent until\\nwe see fit to reconsider them, regardless of whether subse-\\nquent cases have raised doubts about their continuing vi-\\ntality.”); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997) (“The\\nCourt of Appeals was correct in applying that principle de-\\nspite disagreement with [the precedent], for it is this\\nCourt’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its prece-\\ndents.”); Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express,\\nInc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989) (“If a precedent of this Court\\nhas direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on rea-\\nsons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of\\nAppeals should follow the case which directly controls,\\nleaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own\\ndecisions.”).\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 7\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nGenetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), and that the holding of\\nMayo may be overbroad. The language of § 101 does cover\\n“discover[ies],” 35 U.S.C. § 101, and there is no doubt that\\ndetermining the relationship between specific genetic ab-\\nnormalities and specific diseases constitutes an important\\ndiscovery with proven utility. There is much to be said for\\nthe patentability of claims to such discoveries, if not\\ndrafted overbroadly. And Myriad suggests that such dis-\\ncoveries may be patent eligible. There, the patent appli-\\ncant discovered a previously unknown natural\\nphenomenon: the location and sequence of the BRCA1 and\\nBRCA2 genes and their connection to cancer. Myriad, 569\\nU.S. at 582–83. Although the Court held ineligible the\\nclaims to naturally occurring DNA sequences, it suggested\\nthat “new applications of knowledge about the BRCA1 and\\nBRCA2 genes” could be eligible and referred to various “un-\\nchallenged claims” discussed in Judge Bryson’s concur-\\nrence to our court’s decision below. Id. at 596 (emphasis in\\noriginal) (citing Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Pa-\\ntent & Trademark Office, Inc., 689 F.3d 1303, 1349 (Fed.\\nCir. 2012) (Bryson, J. concurring)). One of these “unchal-\\nlenged claims” was claim 21 of Myriad’s U.S. Patent No.\\n5,753,441, which covered a method of detecting (using con-\\nventional methods) any of several specific mutations in the\\nBRCA1 gene, newly discovered by the patent applicant and\\nshown to increase a person’s risk of developing particular\\ncancers (a far narrower claim than the claims held un-\\npatentable in BRCA1- & BRCA2).\\n By suggesting that such a claim could be patent eligi-\\nble, Myriad thus recognized that an inventive concept can\\nsometimes come from the discovery of an unknown natural\\nphenomenon and its application for a diagnostic purpose.\\nThis appears to be in tension with Mayo. Under Mayo, a\\nnatural phenomenon itself, no matter how narrow and spe-\\ncific, cannot supply the requisite “inventive concept.” See\\nMayo, 566 U.S. at 77–78, 88–89.\\n\\n8 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\n Thus, it would be desirable for the Supreme Court to\\nrefine the Mayo framework to allow for sufficiently specific\\ndiagnostic patent claims with proven utility. In the life sci-\\nences, development of new diagnostic methods is often\\nbased on researching complex biological systems. The in-\\nventive concepts in this area may lie primarily in the ap-\\nplication of a natural law.\\n V\\n At the same time, Mayo’s central concern was both im-\\nportant and consistent with the Patent Act. There is a sub-\\nstantial risk that overbroad claims involving natural laws\\nmay “preempt the use of a natural law” and thus “inhibit\\nfurther discovery by improperly tying up the future use of\\nlaws of nature.” Id. at 72, 85. In other words, there is a\\nrisk that granting overbroad patents could reward a mere\\nconcept rather than the work subsequently done by the ac-\\ntual inventor. The risks associated with such overbreadth\\nare shown by the examples discussed earlier.\\n In my view, the Mayo framework should be refined in\\nlimited respects. First, at step one of Mayo, the natural\\nlaw cannot be claimed as such. See Gottschalk v. Benson,\\n409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). As Mayo noted, “Einstein could not\\npatent his celebrated law that E=mc2.” 566 U.S. at 71\\n(quoting Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309\\n(1980)); see also Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591 (1978).\\nNor could a patent claimant “simply recite a law of nature\\nand then add the instruction ‘apply the law,’” such as if\\nEinstein had claimed “a process consisting of simply telling\\nlinear accelerator operators to refer to the law.” Mayo, 566\\nU.S. at 78. Where the natural law itself is so broadly\\nclaimed, there is no reason to address step 2 (the inventive\\nconcept). The claims are simply ineligible.\\n At the same time, “all inventions at some level embody,\\nuse, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phe-\\nnomena, or abstract ideas.” Id. at 71. Thus, a sufficiently\\nspecific “application of a law of nature or mathematical\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 9\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nformula to a known structure or process may well be de-\\nserving of patent protection.” Id. (emphasis in original)\\n(quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981)).\\n For there to be a patent eligible application of a natural\\nlaw, there must be a “discover[y],” 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the\\nclaims must recite a specific application of that “discovery”\\nwith established utility. Otherwise, the natural law may\\nbe entirely preempted, even as to those aspects where the\\npatent claimant has done no more than claim a broad con-\\nception. Requiring a specific application mitigates against\\nthe risk of granting patents too early—that is, before the\\npatent applicant has devised a specific application of the\\nnatural law—and thereby prevents monopolization of the\\n“basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Mayo, 566\\nU.S. at 71 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67); Brenner v.\\nManson, 383 U.S. 519, 534–35 (1966) (noting that before a\\nclaimed invention is sufficiently “refined and developed,”\\ngranting a patent “may confer power to block off whole ar-\\neas of scientific development”); see generally Lemley, supra,\\nat 1337–38 (arguing for a focus on claim scope under § 101\\nand noting that overly broad claims “make later improve-\\nments more costly or even impossible”).\\n The Supreme Court’s opinion in O’Reilly v. Morse, 56\\nU.S. (15 How.) 62 (1854), the foundation of the Court’s ju-\\nrisprudence on patent eligibility, appears to make this very\\ndistinction. There, the Court allowed Morse’s narrower\\nclaims, which were tied specifically to his discovery: the tel-\\negraph. See id. at 112. 4 The Court reasoned that Morse\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 For example, Morse’s second claim recited “the em-\\nployment of the machinery called the register or recording\\ninstrument, composed of the train of clock-wheels, cylin-\\nders, and other apparatus, or their equivalent, for remov-\\ning the material upon which the characters are to be\\nimprinted, and for imprinting said characters,\\n\\n10 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\n“discover[ed] a method by which intelligible marks or signs\\nmay be printed at a distance” and that “for the [particular]\\nmethod or process thus discovered, he is entitled to a pa-\\ntent.” Id. at 117. But the Court held unpatentable Morse’s\\nclaim to all “marking or printing [of] intelligible characters,\\nsigns, or letters, at any distances” via electric currents, be-\\ncause “the claim is too broad, and not warranted by law.”\\nId. at 112–13. As in Mayo, the Court was particularly con-\\ncerned about preempting use of the natural phenomenon:\\n“For aught that we now know some future inventor, in the\\nonward march of science, may discover a [different] mode\\nof writing or printing at a distance by means of the electric\\nor galvanic current . . . . But yet if it is covered by this pa-\\ntent the inventor could not use it, nor the public have the\\nbenefit of it without the permission of this patentee.” Id.\\nat 113.\\n More recent opinions of the Supreme Court are also\\nconsistent with a focus on claims that sweep too broadly.\\nIn Benson, the Court observed that the claims were “so ab-\\nstract and sweeping as to cover both known and unknown\\nuses of” the mathematical formula at issue, and so held the\\nclaims ineligible. 409 U.S. at 67–68. Similarly, in Flook,\\nthe claims to “a formula for computing an updated alarm\\nlimit” could “cover a broad range of potential uses” and\\nwere also held ineligible. 437 U.S. at 586. By contrast, in\\nDiehr, the Court held eligible claims that used a well-\\nknown mathematical equation in a process of curing syn-\\nthetic rubber. 450 U.S. at 191–92. The patent claimants\\ndid “not seek to pre-empt the use of th[e] equation,” but ra-\\nther sought “only to foreclose from others the use of that\\nequation in conjunction with all of the other steps in their\\nclaimed process” for curing rubber. Id. at 187. Thus, the\\n\\n\\n\\nsubstantially as set forth in the foregoing description of the\\nsecond principal part of my invention.” Morse, 56 U.S. at\\n85.\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 11\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nSupreme Court’s precedents support a requirement of spe-\\ncific application as part of the patent eligibility inquiry as\\nto natural laws.\\n To ensure against overbroad claims, the scope of the\\n§ 101 natural law exception is necessarily informed by the\\nutility requirement of § 101. The utility requirement has\\nits origins in the constitutional grant of Congressional au-\\nthority, which contemplated that the “discoveries” entitled\\nto patents would be limited to those of proven utility. See\\nU.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8; Sean M. O’Connor, The Over-\\nlooked French Influence on the Intellectual Property Clause,\\n82 U. Chi. L. Rev. 733, 792–93 (2015). And the statutory\\nrequirement of utility has been held by the Supreme Court\\nto require that the claimed invention have established util-\\nity, not merely the prospect of future utility. Brenner, 383\\nU.S. at 534–36. In Brenner, the Supreme Court held that\\na patent claiming an allegedly novel process for making\\ncertain known steroids was ineligible for lack of utility. Id.\\nThe Court reasoned that without a showing of utility, “the\\nmetes and bounds of th[e] monopoly are not capable of pre-\\ncise delineation,” and “[s]uch a patent may confer power to\\nblock off whole areas of scientific development, without\\ncompensating benefit to the public.” Id. at 534. “Unless\\nand until a process is refined and developed to this point—\\nwhere specific benefit exists in currently available form—\\nthere is insufficient justification for permitting an appli-\\ncant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.” Id. at\\n534–35. It follows that the scope of patents involving the\\napplication of natural laws should not extend beyond es-\\ntablished utility, and that claims that extend further are\\nnot patent eligible. Under this approach, because of their\\nbreadth, the claims in Mayo would not be eligible at step\\none. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 87 (explaining that the claim\\nsteps were “set forth in highly general language covering\\nall processes that make use of the correlations after meas-\\nuring metabolites, including later discovered processes\\nthat measure metabolite levels in new ways”).\\n\\n12 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\n However, if the claim is sufficiently tied to a specific\\nand useful application of a natural law at Mayo step one,\\nthat application itself should serve as the necessary in-\\nventive concept at Mayo step two. Yet at step two, the ap-\\nplication must be more than determining the precise\\ncorrelation of a known relationship using prior art pro-\\ncesses, as was the case in Mayo itself. In Mayo, “scientists\\nalready understood that the levels in a patient’s blood of\\ncertain metabolites, including [those involved in the\\nclaims] were correlated with the likelihood that a particu-\\nlar dosage of a thiopurine drug could cause harm or prove\\nineffective.” Id. at 73–74. And “scientists routinely meas-\\nured metabolites as part of their investigations into the re-\\nlationships between metabolite levels and efficacy and\\ntoxicity of thiopurine compounds.” Id. at 79. “But those in\\nthe field did not know the precise correlations between me-\\ntabolite levels and likely harm or ineffectiveness.” Id. at\\n74. Thus, Mayo’s claims only involved determining the pre-\\ncise correlations of a law of nature that was already well\\nknown. The asserted application of the natural law was\\ntherefore no more than determining “the precise correla-\\ntions between metabolite levels and likely harm or ineffec-\\ntiveness” of a drug dosage and thus was patent ineligible.\\n Requiring specific and useful application for the entire\\nscope of the claim at Mayo step one, and more than deter-\\nmining precise correlations of a known natural law using\\nprior art processes at Mayo step two, would ensure that the\\nclaims truly recite an “inventive application” of the natural\\nlaw that should be eligible under § 101. This approach\\nwould help ensure that the reward of a patent goes to those\\nwho have actually done the work to develop a specific ap-\\nplication of a natural law, not those who are the first to the\\npatent office with broad, conceptual claims lacking proven\\nutility in many applications.\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 13\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\n VI\\n Finally, this case may involve claims that could be pa-\\ntent eligible under this suggested approach. First, claims\\n7–9 do not claim the natural law itself—the relationship\\nbetween MuSK autoantibodies and MG, a rare neurological\\ndisorder—but rather claim specific methods of diagnosing\\nneurological disorders like MG by detecting MuSK autoan-\\ntibodies. See Athena, 915 F.3d at 747. 5 Second, unlike in\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 Claims 7–9 depend from claim 1, not at issue in this\\nappeal, which recites:\\n 1. A method for diagnosing neurotransmission or\\n developmental disorders related to [MuSK] in a\\n mammal comprising the step of detecting in a bod-\\n ily fluid of said mammal autoantibodies to an\\n epitope of [MuSK].\\n’820 patent, col. 12, ll. 31–35.\\n Claim 7 recites:\\n 7. A method according to claim 1, comprising\\n contacting MuSK or an epitope or antigenic deter-\\n minant thereof having a suitable label thereon,\\n with said bodily fluid, immunoprecipitating any\\n antibody/MuSK complex or antibody/MuSK\\n epitope or antigenic determinant complex from\\n said bodily fluid and\\n monitoring for said label on any of said anti-\\n body/MuSK complex or antibody/MuSK epitope or\\n antigen determinant complex,\\n wherein the presence of said label is indicative of\\n said mammal is suffering from said neurotransmis-\\n sion or developmental disorder related to [MuSK].\\nId. col. 12, l. 62–col 13, l. 5 (indentation added).\\n\\n14 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nMayo, this case involves a “discovery” of the relationship,\\nnot mere determination of the precise correlations of a\\nknown natural law using prior art processes. As the panel\\nnoted, “[p]rior to the[] discovery [by the named inventors],\\nno disease had been associated with MuSK.” Id.\\n Because at least some of the claims here recite specific\\napplications of the newly discovered law of nature with\\nproven utility, this case could provide the Supreme Court\\nwith the opportunity to refine the Mayo framework as to\\ndiagnostic patents.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and recites that the label\\nis a radioactive label. Id. col. 13, ll. 6–7. Claim 9 depends\\nfrom claim 8 and further recites that the radioactive label\\nis 125I. Id. col 13, ll. 8–9.\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD\\n UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCK-\\n GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER\\n WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA\\nMAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC,\\n Defendants-Appellees\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2508\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Massachusetts in No. 1:15-cv-40075-IT, Judge\\nIndira Talwani.\\n ______________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4413809/\", \"author_raw\": \"and TARANTO, Circuit Judge, join, concurring\"}, {\"author\": \"CHEN, Circuit Judge, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"CHEN, Circuit Judge, concurring with denial of the petition\\nfor rehearing en banc.\\n “Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws\\nwould be given wide scope.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593,\\n601 (2010) (quoting Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303,\\n308 (1980)). As the Court observed, “Congress took this\\npermissive approach to patent eligibility to ensure that ‘in-\\ngenuity should receive a liberal encouragement.’” Id. Con-\\nsistent with that mandate, the Court in Diamond v. Diehr,\\n450 U.S. 175 (1981) adopted a relatively narrow and more\\n\\n2 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nadministrable version of the judicial exceptions to the stat-\\nutory text of 35 U.S.C. § 101 compared to what the Court\\narticulated three years earlier in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S.\\n584 (1978). Under Diehr’s “claim as a whole” principle,\\nwhich does not divide the claim into new versus old ele-\\nments, Athena’s claims, particularly claims 7 and 9, likely\\nwould have been found to be directed to a patent-eligible\\nprocess comprising a set of technical, transformative steps\\nto test a patient for a particular medical condition. But in\\nMayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories,\\nInc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), the Court set forth an inventive\\nconcept/point of novelty framework, which is a more far-\\nreaching, aggressive version of the judicial exceptions to\\nthe statute and is largely incompatible with Diehr’s core\\nrationale. At the same time, nothing in Mayo suggests that\\nit sought to repudiate Diehr’s analysis. While I believe our\\ncourt would benefit from the Supreme Court’s guidance as\\nto whether it intended to override central tenets of Diehr,\\nMayo’s reasoning is clear and we are bound by it. Because\\nthat analysis requires the affirmance of the district court’s\\ndecision to invalidate Athena’s claims, I concur with this\\ncourt’s decision to deny the petition for rehearing en banc.\\n I. FLOOK AND DIEHR\\n In Flook, the Court articulated the notion that some-\\nthing else beyond an algorithm or law of nature recited in\\na claim must provide the key “inventive concept” to make\\na claim patent-eligible. 437 U.S. at 594. There, the claims\\nrecited a formula for computing an updated alarm limit, a\\nnumber that signals the presence of an abnormal temper-\\nature, pressure, and flow rate combination indicating inef-\\nficiency or perhaps danger during catalytic conversion\\nprocesses. Id. at 585. While the Court recognized that “a\\nprocess is not unpatentable simply because it contains a\\nlaw of nature or a mathematical algorithm,” id. at 590, it\\nalso declared that “the discovery of such a phenomenon\\ncannot support a patent unless there is some other in-\\nventive concept in its application.” Id. at 594. Because the\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 3\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nrecited field of use of catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons\\nwas “well known,” and the formula received no credit in the\\nanalysis, the Court concluded that Flook’s claim “contains\\nno patentable invention.” Id. The Court indicated that it\\nhad considered the claim “as a whole,” but it did so by re-\\nviewing the claim on an element-by-element basis in\\nsearch of something new and inventive, discounting the\\nformula as “assumed to be within the prior art.” Id. In so\\ndoing, the Court found no novel “inventive concept” in the\\nclaim. Id.\\n The Court advanced a very different analytic approach\\nfor the judicial exceptions in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.\\n175 (1981), one that is difficult to reconcile with much of\\nFlook’s reasoning. The Court held patent-eligible under\\n§ 101 a claim for a process of constantly measuring the\\ntemperature inside a molding press to determine when to\\nremove a cured rubber product. Id. at 192–93. The rela-\\ntionship between temperature and cure relied on a known\\nmathematical equation, but the Court found that, when the\\noverall patent claim was considered as a whole, the re-\\nspondents did “not seek to patent a mathematical formula,”\\nbut instead “[sought] protection for a process of curing syn-\\nthetic rubber.” Id. at 187. Rejecting a point of novelty in-\\nquiry for § 101, the Court stated: “The ‘novelty’ of any\\nelement or steps in a process, or even of the process itself,\\nis of no relevance in determining whether the subject mat-\\nter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly\\npatentable subject matter.” Id. at 188–89; id. at 193 n.15\\n(“The fact that one or more of the steps in [a claimed] pro-\\ncess may not, in isolation, be novel or independently eligi-\\nble for patent protection is irrelevant to the question of\\nwhether the claims as a whole recite subject matter eligible\\nfor patent protection under § 101.”) (emphasis in original);\\nsee also id. at 190 (“The question therefore of whether a\\nparticular invention is novel is ‘wholly apart from whether\\nthe invention falls into a category of statutory subject\\n\\n4 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nmatter.’” (quoting In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 952, 961 (C.C.P.A.\\n1979))).\\n Furthermore, Bilski recognized the interplay between\\nDiehr and Flook, pointing out that Diehr “established a\\nlimitation on the principles articulated in [Gottschalk v.]\\nBenson and Flook” in that “Diehr emphasized the need to\\nconsider the invention as a whole, rather than ‘dissect[ing]\\nthe claims into old and new elements . . . in the analysis.’”\\nBilski, 561 U.S. at 611 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188).\\nThus, as recently as Bilski, the Court understood Diehr as\\nrequiring consideration of the claim as a whole, including\\nany mathematical formula or scientific principle, in the\\n§ 101 inquiry, and as rejecting any dissection of the claim\\nin search of novel or unconventional components.\\n Aside from reaffirming the result in Flook, the Diehr\\nCourt addressed Flook’s takeaway meaning at two differ-\\nent points in the opinion. First, Diehr observed: “Our re-\\ncent holdings in Gottschalk v. Benson, supra, and Parker v.\\nFlook, supra, both of which are computer-related, stand for\\nno more than [the] long-established principles” that\\n“[e]xcluded from such patent protection are laws of nature,\\nnatural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” 450 U.S. at 185\\n(citing Flook and other cases describing the judicial excep-\\ntions, e.g., “[a] principle[] in the abstract . . . cannot be pa-\\ntented.”). Second, Diehr explained the defect in the Flook\\nclaim in the following way: “A mathematical formula does\\nnot suddenly become patentable subject matter simply by\\nhaving the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the\\npatent for the formula to a particular technological\\nuse . . . . All the application provided was a ‘formula for\\ncomputing an updated alarm limit.’” Id. at 192 n.14 (quot-\\ning Flook, 437 U.S. at 586). The Diehr Court thus regarded\\nthe Flook claim as merely reciting a formula that would be\\napplicable in an industrial process, but not reciting an\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 5\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nindustrial process itself. 1 Aside from these two points,\\nDiehr did not restate any other principles expressed in\\nFlook.\\n That Diehr established a limitation on Flook and re-\\njected the point of novelty/inventive concept approach to\\npatent eligibility is underscored by the protests within the\\nDiehr dissent. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 204–16. “Proper\\nanalysis,” in the dissent’s view, “must start with an under-\\nstanding of what the inventor claims to have discovered—\\nor phrased somewhat differently—what he considers his\\ninventive concept to be.” Id. at 212. Because the claim had\\n“no other inventive concept” other than the addition of a\\nmathematical algorithm to the otherwise conventional\\nclaimed process for curing rubber, the dissent would have\\nfound the Diehr claim ineligible. Id. at 213–14. The Diehr\\nmajority responded: “In order for the dissent to reach its\\nconclusion it is necessary for it to read out of respondents’\\npatent application all the steps in the claimed process\\nwhich it determined were not novel or ‘inventive.’ That is\\nnot the purpose of the § 101 inquiry and conflicts with the\\nproposition recited above that a claimed invention may be\\nentitled to patent protection even though some or all of its\\nelements are not ‘novel.’” Id. at 193 n.15.\\n Given Diehr’s evident disagreement with Flook’s anal-\\nysis, Diehr, as the later opinion, was widely understood to\\nbe the guiding, settled precedent on § 101 for three dec-\\nades. See, e.g., Arrhythmia Research Tech., Inc. v. Corazo-\\nnix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053, 1057 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1992)\\n\\n\\n 1 Citing Flook, the Diehr Court also stated that “in-\\nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an un-\\npatentable principle into a patentable process.” Id. at 191–\\n92. What that meant (pre-Mayo) was not clear, but, at the\\ntime, it could be read to refer to the fact that Flook’s claim\\ndid nothing more than “limit the use of the formula to a\\nparticular technological environment.” Id. at 191.\\n\\n6 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\n(“Although commentators have differed in their interpreta-\\ntions of Benson, Flook, and Diehr, it appears to be generally\\nagreed that these decisions represent evolving views of the\\nCourt, and that the reasoning in Diehr not only elaborated\\non, but in part superseded, that of Benson and Flook.”) (cit-\\ning R.L. Gable & J.B. Leaheey, The Strength of Patent Pro-\\ntection for Computer Products, 17 Rutgers Computer &\\nTech. L.J. 87 (1991); D. Chisum, The Patentability of Algo-\\nrithms, 47 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 959 (1986)); see also Edward W.\\nRoush, Jr., Patent Law-Patentable Subject Matter-Manu-\\nfacturing Process Which Includes Use of Mathematical For-\\nmula and Computer Program Constitutes Patentable\\nSubject Matter, 13 St. Mary’s L.J. 420, 428–29 (1981) (“The\\nDiehr Court’s holding is entirely consistent with title 35,\\nsection 101 subject matter standards. Although both the\\nmajority and dissent acknowledged that Diehr presented a\\nsection 101 statutory subject matter question, the dissent\\nimproperly injected considerations of section 102 novelty\\ninto its analysis. The majority in Flook employed the same\\nrationale.”).\\n II. MAYO AND ALICE\\n Three decades after Diehr, Mayo provided a framework\\nfor the judicial exceptions that strongly tracked the reason-\\ning of Flook and the Diehr dissent. Mayo Collaborative\\nServs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012). The\\nclaims in Mayo were for a method of optimizing the treat-\\nment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder\\ncomprising two physical steps: (1) administering a syn-\\nthetic drug to a patient, and (2) determining the concentra-\\ntion level of certain metabolic byproducts in the patient’s\\nbloodstream. The claims also included two “wherein”\\nclauses, reciting that the measured level indicates whether\\nthe patient has received a safe and effective dose. Id. at\\n74–75. The Court found that the “wherein” clauses incor-\\nporate a law of nature: the relationship between concentra-\\ntions of certain metabolites in the blood and the likelihood\\nthat a thiopurine drug dosage will prove ineffective or\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 7\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\ncause harm. Id. at 78. Because the two physical steps were\\nwell-known in the prior art, the Mayo Court characterized\\nthese claims as adding to that law of nature nothing more\\nthan “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Id.\\nat 73, 79–80.\\n Citing primarily to Flook, as well as Bilski, the Court\\nstated that its prior decisions “insist that a process that fo-\\ncuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other ele-\\nments or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to\\nas an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the pa-\\ntent in practice amounts to significantly more than a pa-\\ntent upon the natural law itself.” Id. at 72–73. Because,\\nin the Court’s view, “the steps in the claimed processes\\n(apart from the natural laws themselves) involve well-un-\\nderstood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged\\nin by researchers in the field,” the claims lacked any in-\\nventive concept. Id. at 73. Moreover, the Court did not\\nshare the concerns Diehr expressed as to preserving a doc-\\ntrinal distinction between §§ 101 and 102; instead, the\\nCourt noted: “We recognize that, in evaluating the signifi-\\ncance of additional steps [beyond the law of nature] the\\n§ 101 patent eligibility inquiry and, say, the § 102 novelty\\ninquiry might sometimes overlap.” Id. at 90. Mayo’s ra-\\ntionale thus follows the point of novelty/inventive concept\\nreasoning of Flook and the Diehr dissent.\\n As such, Mayo is in considerable tension with Diehr’s\\ninstruction to consider claims “as a whole” and Diehr’s dis-\\napproval of dissecting claims into elements and ignoring\\nnon-novel elements in the § 101 analysis. 450 U.S. at 188.\\nThe Mayo Court indicated that it considered the claimed\\nsteps “as an ordered combination,” but it excluded the law\\nof nature from that review and concluded that the “ordered\\ncombination adds nothing to the laws of nature that is not\\nalready present when the steps are considered separately.”\\n566 U.S. at 79. In other words, after setting aside the law\\nof nature, “any additional steps consist[ed] of well-under-\\nstood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by\\n\\n8 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nthe scientific community; and those steps, when viewed as\\na whole, add[ed] nothing significant beyond the sum of\\ntheir parts taken separately.” Id. at 79–80. The Court\\nfound support for this understanding of the judicial excep-\\ntions in Flook, observing that, for the Flook claim, the steps\\nof monitoring a catalytic conversion process “were all ‘well\\nknown,’ to the point where, putting the formula to the side,\\nthere was no ‘inventive concept’ in the claimed application\\nof the formula.” Id. at 82. That type of “ordered combina-\\ntion” review (“putting the formula to the side”), however, is\\nfundamentally different from Diehr’s “claim as whole” prin-\\nciple, which does not carve out the judicial exception from\\nthe patent eligibility inquiry, nor does it dismiss elements\\nthat lack novelty. 2 See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–93.\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Both Mayo and Flook rely on an 1841 English case,\\nNeilson v. Harford, 1 Web. P. C. 295 (1841), as supporting\\nan “inventive concept” requirement in which a law of na-\\nture is treated as something well-known. Mayo, 566 U.S.\\nat 82–83; Flook, 437 U.S. at 592. There is reason to believe,\\nhowever, that the decision in Neilson did not turn on such\\na premise. See Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707, 723–25\\n(1880) (describing Neilson’s reasoning as drawing “the true\\ndistinction between a mere principle . . . and a process by\\nwhich a principle is applied to effect a useful result.”); see\\nalso Brief of Professors Jeffrey A. Lefstin and Peter S. Men-\\nell as Amici Curiae in Support of Petition for Writ of Certi-\\norari at 15–21, Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.\\n(2016) (No. 15-1182) (Lefstin and Menell Br.). Moreover,\\nno Supreme Court patent eligibility case for a process claim\\nprior to Flook relied on an inventive concept inquiry or as-\\nsumption that a scientific discovery should be regarded as\\nwell-known. See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63\\n(1972); Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U.S. 366\\n(1909); Dolbear v. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 126 U.S. 1 (1888);\\nTilghman, 102 U.S. ; Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 9\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\n In Alice, the Court reaffirmed this reversion to Flook,\\nreiterating that, if the claims at issue are directed to laws\\nof nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas, then we\\nmust ask “what else is there in the claims before us?” And\\nin doing so, we must “consider the elements of each claim\\nindividually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine\\nwhether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of\\nthe claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice Corp.\\nPty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014) (quoting\\nMayo, 566 U.S. at 78–79) (emphases added). As in Mayo,\\nAlice described the second step of this analysis “as a search\\nfor an ‘inventive concept’” that discounts the law of nature\\nor abstract idea from that inquiry. Id. (quoting Mayo, 566\\nU.S. at 72–73); see also id. at 221 (“A claim that recites an\\nabstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure\\n‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n(1876); Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252 (1853); Le Roy v.\\nTatham, 55 U.S. 156 (1853) (“A patent will be good, though\\nthe subject of the patent consists in the discovery of a great,\\ngeneral, and most comprehensive principle in science or\\nlaw of nature, if that principle is by the specification ap-\\nplied to any special purpose, so as thereby to effectuate a\\npractical result and benefit not previously attained.” (quot-\\ning Househill Coal & Iron Co. v. Neilson, 1 Web. P. C. 673,\\n683 (1843))); see also O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 114–\\n15,118 (1853) (quoting same passage from Neilson quoted\\nin Mayo and Flook, and then stating that “we see nothing”\\nin Neilson “which would sanction the introduction of any\\nnew principle in the law of patents” and relying on “estab-\\nlished principles in the American courts”). Importantly,\\nDiehr’s reasoning, which post-dates Flook and was control-\\nling authority for 30 years, is incompatible with the in-\\nventive concept approach.\\n\\n10 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nmonopolize the [abstract idea].’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.\\nat 77)). 3\\n When it comes to applying the judicial exceptions, it\\nbears noting that the Mayo analytical approach is consid-\\nerably harder to apply consistently than the Diehr frame-\\nwork, and more aggressive in its reach. Consider the claim\\nin Mayo. If that claim had recited just the single step of\\nadministering a synthetic drug to a patient, that single-\\nstep claim would be patent-eligible, but lack novelty under\\n§ 102. And if that claim added a second step for determin-\\ning the subsequent level of a non-naturally occurring me-\\ntabolite in a patient, that claim also would pass muster\\nunder § 101, but lack novelty. But when the claim further\\nrecites a relationship between a metabolite level and its ef-\\nficacy in a patient, that claim suddenly would be invalid\\nunder § 101 for violating the law of nature exception. In\\nother words, steps 1 and 2 now get pushed aside and de-\\nclared insignificant, and the last step is designated as the\\n“focus” of the claim, i.e., the heart of the invention. The\\nnotion that adding claim language can convert an other-\\nwise patent-eligible claim into a patent-ineligible claim is\\ncounterintuitive and a very difficult thing to explain to\\n8,000 patent examiners. 4 Moreover, the process of\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 The Alice Court, like Mayo and Flook, states that\\nits approach is consistent with the rule that patent claims\\nmust be considered as a whole, because it considers the\\nclaim elements separately as well as in combination. Alice,\\n573 U.S. at 218 n.3. But, as explained supra, this approach\\nis wholly unlike Diehr’s understanding of evaluating the\\nclaim “as a whole.”\\n 4 That is not to say that the Mayo claim should have\\nbeen upheld as valid. The “wherein” clauses simply iden-\\ntified a mental inference from practicing a prior art pro-\\ncess, which is insufficient to distinguish the claim from the\\nprior art. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae, at\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 11\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\ndetermining what the claim is “really about” when the\\nclaim is viewed in pieces, rather than as a whole, can be\\nhighly subjective and impressionistic. This approach puts\\ncourts and examiners in the position of assigning value\\njudgments to individual limitations, designating some as\\n“significant” and others as “insignificant,” and hoping eve-\\nryone else reaches the same conclusion as to whether the\\nclaim contains a truly meritorious inventive contribution\\nas opposed to a judicial exception embellished with insig-\\nnificant window dressing. And all this just to resolve the\\nthreshold question of whether an invention is eligible for\\nthe patent system.\\n As written, Mayo requires a patent claim to have an\\ninventive concept apart from the recitation of a natural\\nlaw. That requirement has consequences that go beyond\\nthe facts of Mayo and is certainly clear enough that we are\\nobliged to follow it. But, as explained above, Mayo’s frame-\\nwork is in tension on its face with Diehr, which was equally\\nclear in requiring that a patent claim be considered as a\\nwhole, without putting aside any natural law or otherwise\\ndissecting a claim into new versus old elements. Moreover,\\nnothing in Mayo suggests that it sought to repudiate any-\\nthing in Diehr; it instead suggests that it sought to main-\\ntain continuity with the Court’s prior cases in this area. As\\nfor Flook, the Court in Bilski acknowledged that Diehr had\\n“established a limitation” on Flook by “emphasiz[ing] the\\nneed to consider the invention as a whole, rather than ‘dis-\\nsect[ing] the claims into old and new elements . . . in the\\nanalysis.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S.\\nat 188). Importantly, Mayo does not say that it nullified\\nthis key “limitation” expressed in Diehr. Furthermore, as\\nJudge Dyk points out in his concurrence, the Court’s opin-\\nion in Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics,\\n\\n\\n\\n26–28, Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012) (No. 10-\\n1150).\\n\\n12 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nInc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), which issued after Mayo, could\\nbe read as potentially maintaining an open door for diag-\\nnostic claims such as Athena’s, because they may be re-\\ngarded as applications of knowledge of discovered natural\\nlaws. See Dyk Concurrence at 7. Myriad thus could sug-\\ngest that Mayo should not go as far as its language indi-\\ncates.\\n Through it all, there is a serious question today in pa-\\ntent law as to what extent Diehr remains good law in light\\nof Mayo. We are not in a position to resolve that question,\\nbut the Supreme Court can. Resolution of the present con-\\nfusion is important because if Mayo in fact overruled the\\nprinciples in Diehr (as reiterated in Bilski), then that\\nwould be a significant incursion on the settled expectations\\nthat had existed for 30 years since Diehr. Relying on the\\nDiehr framework, the Patent Office examined and granted\\nmany patents for medical diagnostic methods, establishing\\nsettled expectations in those granted property rights, and\\nprompted companies and research institutions to organize\\ntheir conduct and choices accordingly. Many of these diag-\\nnostic claims, including the ones at issue here, do not hold\\nup well against Mayo’s more searching, claim dissection\\nscrutiny.\\n III. ATHENA’S CLAIMS\\n Judge Newman, Judge Moore, the petitioner, and the\\namici raise several valid concerns. But I believe the rea-\\nsoning underlying recent Supreme Court decisions compels\\nus to affirm the district court’s invalidity determination\\nhere. While Diehr long established that we must evaluate\\n“the claim as a whole” for § 101 purposes, that principle has\\nbeen considerably undermined, for we’ve been recently in-\\nstructed to ask for claims such as Athena’s, “do the patent\\nclaims add enough to their statements of the correlations\\nto allow the processes they describe to qualify as patent-\\neligible processes that apply natural laws?” Mayo, 566\\nU.S. at 77 (emphases in original). Moreover, “[p]urely\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 13\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\n‘conventional or obvious’ ‘[pre]-solution activity’ is nor-\\nmally not sufficient to transform an unpatentable law of\\nnature into a patent-eligible application of such a law.” Id.\\nat 79.\\n It appears to me that, per Mayo, because the associa-\\ntion of an antibody and a medical disorder is deemed to be\\na law of nature rather than an application of a law of na-\\nture, detecting that law of nature, by using data gathering\\nsteps or devices that can be said to be basic, conventional,\\nor obvious, fails § 101. This is in contrast to examples, such\\nas Diehr and Neilson, in which, as characterized by Mayo,\\nthe claimed inventions included unconventional steps be-\\nyond reliance on an abstract scientific principle. Mayo, 566\\nU.S. at 80–81, 83–84. In other words, the Supreme Court\\nhas made clear that detecting a law of nature (without\\nmore than conventional steps for accessing the law of na-\\nture) does not qualify as a patent-eligible application of a\\nlaw of nature.\\n Here, the inventors of Athena’s U.S. Patent No.\\n7,267,820 discovered an association between the disorder\\nmyasthenia gravis and the presence of muscle specific ty-\\nrosine kinase (MuSK) autoantibodies in a patient’s blood.\\nAt issue are claims 7–9 reciting:\\n 1. A method for diagnosing neurotransmission or\\n developmental disorders related to muscle spe-\\n cific tyrosine kinase (MuSK) in a mammal com-\\n prising the step of detecting in a bodily fluid of\\n said mammal autoantibodies to an epitope of\\n muscle specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK).\\n [...]\\n 7. A method according to claim 1, comprising\\n contacting MuSK or an epitope or antigenic de-\\n terminant thereof having a suitable label\\n thereon, with said bodily fluid,\\n\\n14 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\n immunoprecipitating any antibody/MuSK com-\\n plex or antibody/MuSK epitope or antigenic de-\\n terminant complex from said bodily fluid and\\n monitoring for said label on any of said anti-\\n body/MuSK complex or antibody/MuSK epitope\\n or antigen determinant complex,\\n wherein the presence of said label is indicative\\n of said mammal is suffering from said neuro-\\n transmission or developmental disorder related\\n to [MuSK].\\n 8. A method according to claim 7 wherein said la-\\n bel is a radioactive label.\\n 9. A method according to claim 8 wherein said la-\\n bel is 125I.\\n’820 patent, col. 12 ll. 31–35, col. 12 l. 62 – col. 13 l. 9.\\n We must accept that the association between the anti-\\nbody and the disorder is a law of nature. Here, as in Mayo,\\ndata first must be gathered in order to access and observe\\nthe newly-discovered law of nature, and the claimed steps\\n“simply tell doctors to gather data from which they may\\ndraw an inference in light of the correlations.” Mayo, 566\\nU.S. at 79. That claims 7 and 9 do not preempt all ways of\\nobserving the law of nature isn’t decisive, as none of the\\nsteps recited therein add anything inventive to the\\nclaims. Claim 7’s label-adding and immunoprecipitating\\nsteps are conventional, standard techniques in the art of\\ndetecting the presence of a law of nature such as a protein;\\nthe panel majority opinion notes that these steps do not re-\\ncite any improvement in the underlying immunoassay\\ntechnology. Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative\\nServs., LLC, 915 F.3d 743, 751 (Fed. Cir. 2019).\\n Claim 9 recites use of a particular label, but one that\\nwas standard to use in the art. This cannot provide the\\ninventive concept under Mayo. As an analogy, we would\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 15\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nnot find that a claim directed to an abstract idea of com-\\nmunicating information through a device passes muster\\nunder § 101 simply because it limits the claimed device to,\\nsay, a Samsung Galaxy® smartphone. Nor would the Mayo\\nclaim be considered to possess an inventive concept if it had\\nrecited that the initial step of “administering a drug” be\\nperformed in a conventional way, such as orally or intrave-\\nnously.\\n One amicus brief points out that § 101 provides that\\n“[w]hoever invents or discovers” a new or useful process,\\nmanufacture, machine or composition of matter may be en-\\ntitled to a patent, and that § 100(a) defines “invention” to\\nmean “invention or discovery.” Brief of Freenome Holdings\\nInc. and Achillion Pharm., Inc. as Amici Curiae in Support\\nof Neither Party, Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collab-\\norative Servs., LLC, 915 F.3d 743 (2019) (No. 17-2508).\\nSection 100 also defines “process” to include “a new use of\\na known process, machine, manufacture, composition of\\nmatter, or material.” § 100(b). Arguably, Athena’s inven-\\ntion is a claim for a new use (diagnosing myasthenia gravis)\\nof a known composition of matter (MuSK autoantibodies).\\nMoreover, given that the dual “invention or discovery”\\nstructure consistently has been part of every Patent Act\\nsince 1790, this statutory provision suggests that at least\\nsome discoveries, including Athena’s “discovery” of how to\\ndiagnose myasthenia gravis, have always been contem-\\nplated as patentable subject matter. See Lefstin and Men-\\nell Br. at 4–14. However, I am not aware of the Supreme\\nCourt ever addressing the meaning of “discovers” in § 101\\nseparately from “invents,” and it must be the Supreme\\nCourt, and not this court, that speaks to that statutory\\nquestion, because the Court already proclaimed that\\n“[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery\\ndoes not by itself satisfy the section 101 inquiry.” Myriad,\\n569 U.S. at 591.\\n\\n16 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\n In sum, I do not think the claims here can withstand\\nMayo’s scrutiny. 5 But perhaps when read “as a whole” un-\\nder Diehr, claims such as claims 7 and 9 in this case could\\nbe viewed as methods of testing for a specific medical con-\\ndition, employing a sequence of steps that physically trans-\\nform materials. By no means do the claims cover a natural\\nprinciple in the abstract. Rather, this sounds like a contri-\\nbution to the “useful arts” stated in Article I, Section 8,\\nClause 8 of the U.S. Constitution. That those physical,\\ntransformative steps may apply conventional techniques\\nfor locating an antibody in a sample would not be disre-\\ngarded in the threshold inquiry of whether the claimed in-\\nvention qualifies as subject matter eligible for the patent\\nsystem.\\n New methods for diagnosing medical conditions, as a\\ngeneral matter, intuitively seem to be the kind of subject\\nmatter the patent system is designed for: to encourage the\\nrisky, expensive, unpredictable technical research and de-\\nvelopment that people would not otherwise pursue in the\\nhope that if they discover something of great medical value,\\nthen they will be protected and rewarded for that success-\\nful effort with a patent. This category of invention, after\\nall, is not the same as methods of entering into contracts,\\nor horse whispering, or speed dating or other methods that\\nanimated many of the concerns underlying Bilski. The\\nkind of lab work undertaken in discovering new diagnostics\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 While this court is bound by Mayo, I do not believe\\nthis court has turned Mayo into a “per se rule” that bars all\\nmedical diagnostic claims from patent protection. Moore\\nDissent at 4. Diagnostic claims grounded in novel, non-ob-\\nvious techniques that render a given diagnosis possess an\\ninventive concept continue to be granted. As to the differ-\\nence in outcomes so far in our § 101 decisions between di-\\nagnostic and treatment claims, I agree with the analysis in\\nJudge Lourie’s concurrence. Lourie Concurrence at 3–4.\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 17\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nand performing the steps of such claimed inventions can\\nonly be described as being technical in nature. For several\\ndecades before Mayo, this has been the basis for why the\\nPatent Office granted patents for many medical diagnos-\\ntics—not just for the law of nature in the abstract, but as\\napplied in the real-world medical context to diagnose pa-\\ntient health conditions. In any meaningful sense, this rep-\\nresents a practical application of the discovered law of\\nnature, that is, it is applied science in every sense of that\\nterm. And it should be patentable subject matter in a well-\\nfunctioning patent system.\\n CONCLUSION\\n The most recent Supreme Court opinions are clear in\\nmy view on how to address claims like Athena’s. Even\\nthough Athena’s claims likely would be found patent-eligi-\\nble under Diehr’s framework, it is not an inferior court’s\\nrole to dodge the clear, recent direction of the Supreme\\nCourt. Accordingly, I concur with denial of the petition for\\nrehearing en banc.\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD\\n UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCK-\\n GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER\\n WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA\\nMAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC,\\n Defendants-Appellees\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2508\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Massachusetts in No. 1:15-cv-40075-IT, Judge\\nIndira Talwani.\\n ______________________\\n\\nMOORE, Circuit Judge, with whom O’MALLEY, WALLACH,\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4413809/\", \"author_raw\": \"CHEN, Circuit Judge, concurring\"}, {\"author\": \"and STOLL, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"and STOLL, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from the denial\\nof the petition for rehearing en banc.\\n This is not a case in which the judges of this court dis-\\nagree over whether diagnostic claims, like those at issue in\\nAthena, should be eligible for patent protection. They\\nshould. None of my colleagues defend the conclusion that\\nclaims to diagnostic kits and diagnostic techniques, like\\nthose at issue, should be ineligible. The only difference\\namong us is whether the Supreme Court’s Mayo decision\\n\\n2 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nrequires this outcome. The majority of my colleagues be-\\nlieve that our hands are tied and that Mayo requires this\\noutcome. I believe Mayo does not. The Patent Act renders\\neligible the invention or discovery of any new and useful\\nprocess. 35 U.S.C. § 101. And the patent system exists to\\npromote exactly this sort of specific, targeted application of\\na life-saving discovery, which is characterized by extraor-\\ndinarily high initial market entry costs. The claims in this\\ncase should be held eligible, and they are distinguishable\\nfrom Mayo.\\n DIAGNOSTICS ARE PER SE INELIGIBLE\\n Since Mayo, we have held every single diagnostic claim\\nin every case before us ineligible. See Cleveland Clinic\\nFound. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 760 F. App’x 1013\\n(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Cleveland Clinic II”); Athena Diagnostics,\\nInc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC, 915 F.3d 743 (Fed.\\nCir. 2019); Roche Molecular Sys., Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905\\nF.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True\\nHealth Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017)\\n(“Cleveland Clinic I”); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C.,\\n818 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.\\nSequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re\\nBRCA1- and BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent\\nLitig., 774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2014); PerkinElmer, Inc. v.\\nIntema Ltd., 496 F. App’x 65 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 1 Despite the\\n\\n\\n 1 The district courts are following our lead, holding\\ndiagnostic methods ineligible. See, e.g., Illumina, Inc. v.\\nAriosa Diagnostics, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 3d 925 (N.D. Cal.\\n2018); Genetic Veterinary Scis., Inc. v. LABOklin GmbH &\\nCo., 314 F. Supp. 3d 727 (E.D. Va. 2018); Mallinckrodt\\nHosp. Prods. IP Ltd. v. Praxair Distribution, Inc., No. 15–\\n170–GMS, 2017 WL 3867649 (D. Del. Sept. 5, 2017); Eso-\\nterix Genetic Labs. LLC v. Qiagen Inc., No. 14–CV–13228–\\nADB, 2016 WL 4555613 (D. Mass. Aug. 31, 2016); Esoterix\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 3\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nsignificance of these diagnostic inventions and the high\\ncosts of developing them, we have held, because of Mayo,\\nevery one of these life-changing inventions and discoveries\\nineligible. For example, we held a method for assessing a\\npatient’s risk of having cardiovascular disease by detecting\\na specific enzyme, based on the discovery of the correlation\\nbetween the enzyme and the disease, ineligible. Cleveland\\nClinic I, 859 F.3d at 1363. Cardiovascular disease is the\\nnumber one cause of death in the United States, killing\\nmore than 600,000 people per year, and costing over $200\\nbillion annually. 2 The diagnostic invention in Cleveland\\nClinic I allowed for early diagnosis of cardiovascular dis-\\nease and had a better predictive value than the clinically\\nused risk factors employed by physicians at the time.\\nThere can be no argument but that such early diagnoses\\nwill save lives and reduce future treatment costs. But be-\\ncause of Mayo, such claims were held ineligible. We also\\nheld ineligible claims to a method of screening for altera-\\ntions in genes linked to hereditary breast and ovarian can-\\ncer. In re BRCA1, 774 F.3d at 765. It is estimated that\\nbreast cancer will kill more than 40,000 people in 2019. 3\\nAgain, there is no reasonable dispute that early diagnoses\\nsave lives and future medical costs. To be clear, the method\\nclaims were not to the gene itself which is found in nature,\\nbut rather to a use of the discovered correlation between\\n\\n\\nGenetic Labs. LLC v. Qiagen Inc., 133 F. Supp. 3d 349 (D.\\nMass. 2015); Genetic Veterinary Scis., Inc. v. Canine EIC\\nGenetics, LLC, 101 F. Supp. 3d 833 (D. Minn. 2015).\\n 2 CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION,\\nHeart Disease Fact Sheet (Aug. 23, 2017),\\nhttps://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fs_\\nheart_disease.htm.\\n 3 NAT’L CANCER INSTITUTE, Cancer Stat Facts: Fe-\\nmale Breast Cancer, https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/\\nbreast.html.\\n\\n4 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\ncertain mutations and breast cancer for diagnostic pur-\\nposes. In re BRCA1, 774 F.3d at 758. We held ineligible a\\nmethod for detecting tuberculosis, one of the world’s dead-\\nliest diseases. 4 Roche, 905 F.3d at 1374. And claims to\\ndiagnostic methods related to fetal health, characteristics,\\nand genetic disorders, such as Down syndrome, fared no\\nbetter. Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1378; PerkinElmer, 496 F. App’x\\nat 73. The Ariosa method of detecting fetal abnormalities\\nbased on a simple blood test was an absolute game changer.\\nPrior to the Ariosa discovery, such abnormalities were de-\\ntected with higher cost and higher risk procedures such as\\namniocenteses which had the potential to harm all in-\\nvolved. That brings us to the Athena claims, which are di-\\nrected to a method of diagnosing patients with an\\nautoimmune disease using a protein that had never before\\nbeen associated with the disease. Athena, 915 F. 3d at 747.\\nOne of every five patients with the autoimmune disease ex-\\nperienced symptoms but did not produce the type of auto-\\nantibodies previously associated with the disease, and thus\\nwere unable to be diagnosed and properly treated at an\\nearly stage. Id. The claimed diagnostic method in Athena\\nsolved that problem through a specific, narrowly tailored\\ndiagnostic process but was nonetheless held ineligible.\\nNone of these diagnostic claims survived because we con-\\ncluded we had no choice because of Mayo.\\n We have turned Mayo into a per se rule that diagnostic\\nkits and techniques are ineligible. That per se rule is “too\\nbroad an interpretation of this exclusionary principle\\n[which] could eviscerate patent law.” Mayo Collaborative\\nServices v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71\\n(2012). The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned\\nagainst rigid or per se rules. See, e.g., Halo Elecs., Inc. v.\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, Tu-\\nberculosis (TB) Data and Statistics (Dec. 31, 2018),\\nhttps://www.cdc.gov/tb/statistics/default.\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 5\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nPulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1932 (2016) (rejecting\\ntest which “is unduly rigid”); Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON\\nHealth & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 551 (2014) (rejecting\\ntest as “unduly rigid”); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550\\nU.S. 398, 419–20 (2007) (cautioning against “[r]igid pre-\\nventative rules”); Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo\\nKabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 738 (2002) (preferring that\\nrules be interpreted “in a flexible way, not a rigid one”);\\nWarner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520\\nU.S. 17, 32 (1997) (declining to adopt a “rigid rule”); Dia-\\nmond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 315 (1980) (declining\\nto create a rule that “inventions in areas not contemplated\\nby Congress when the patent laws were enacted are un-\\npatentable per se”).\\n In his opening statement during The State of Patent\\nEligibility in America Senate hearings, Senator Coons rec-\\nognized that “for medical diagnostics, . . . [there is] a pre-\\nsumption against eligibility that is nearly impossible to\\novercome.” The State of Patent Eligibility in America, Part\\nI: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Property of\\nthe S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. 15:36–45\\n(2019) (opening statement of Sen. Coons). And testimony\\nfrom industry representatives confirmed that industry\\nmembers and scholars think “it is unclear whether diag-\\nnostic methods are patentable in any meaningful way.”\\nSee, e.g., The State of Patent Eligibility in America, Part II,\\n116th Cong. 7 (2019) (written testimony of Hans Sauer,\\nPh.D., Deputy General Counsel and Vice President for In-\\ntellectual Property, Biotechnology Innovation Organiza-\\ntion (BIO)).\\n Our fervor for clarity and consistency has resulted in a\\nper se rule that excludes all diagnostics from eligibility. I\\ndo not agree with my colleagues that Mayo requires that\\nall of these claims in all of these cases be held ineligible.\\nBut that is where we are.\\n\\n6 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\n I do not fault my colleagues, who under protest have\\nconcluded that they have no choice but to hold the claims\\nin Athena ineligible because of Mayo. See Athena, 915 F.3d\\nat 753 n.4 (“[W]hether or not we as individual judges might\\nagree or not that these claims only recite a natural law . . .\\nthe Supreme Court has effectively told us in Mayo that cor-\\nrelations between the presence of a biological material and\\na disease are laws of nature.”); see also Ariosa Diagnostics,\\nInc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 809 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2015)\\n(Lourie, J., concurring with denial of reh’g en banc) (“[I]t is\\nunsound to have a rule that takes inventions of this nature\\nout of the realm of patent-eligibility . . . [b]ut I agree that\\nthe panel did not err in its conclusion that under Supreme\\nCourt precedent it had no option other than to affirm the\\ndistrict court.”). There is surely some broad language in\\nMayo which could lead to this conclusion. I, however, think\\nwe have extended Mayo too far. Reading the entirety of\\nMayo and the subsequent Myriad decision, the Supreme\\nCourt did not intend Mayo to be the “sweeping” decision my\\ncolleagues have concluded it is. See, e.g., Ariosa, 788 F.3d\\nat 1380 (Linn, J., concurring) (“I join the court’s opinion in-\\nvalidating the claims . . . only because I am bound by the\\nsweeping language of the test set out in [Mayo].”); Ariosa,\\n809 F.3d at 1290 n.3 (Dyk, J., concurring) (stating that we\\nmust “respect the sweeping precedent of Mayo”); see also\\nid. at 1289 (“[T]here is a problem with Mayo insofar as it\\nconcludes that inventive concept cannot come from discov-\\nering something new in nature . . . . Mayo did not fully\\ntake into account the fact that an inventive concept can\\ncome not just from creative, unconventional application of\\na natural law, but also from the creativity and novelty of\\nthe discovery of the law itself.”). It is the role of this court\\nto both faithfully follow Mayo and to determine its reach\\nwhen facts and circumstances differ. I dissent from my col-\\nleagues’ refusal to rethink our interpretation of Mayo.\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 7\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\n DIAGNOSTICS DESERVE PATENT INCENTIVES\\n “Diagnosis is the foundation of medicine,” and diagnos-\\ntic techniques and kits when narrowly claimed are pre-\\ncisely the type of innovation the patent system exists to\\npromote. 5 Diagnostic techniques, while accounting for less\\nthan 2.5% of healthcare expenses, “guide[] approximately\\n66% of clinical decisions.” 6 Diagnostics are an essential\\ncategory of medical technologies, critical to treating ill-\\nnesses and saving lives. Diagnostic medicine saves lives\\nand money through early detection and reduces the need\\nfor high cost pharmaceuticals or curative procedures, but\\ndeveloping diagnostic kits and techniques is expensive and\\ntime consuming. Development of a new diagnostic test is\\nestimated to cost up to $100 million and to take nearly 10\\nyears. 7\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 NAT’L RESEARCH COUNCIL, TOWARD PRECISION\\nMEDICINE: BUILDING A KNOWLEDGE NETWORK FOR\\nBIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND A NEW TAXONOMY OF DISEASE,\\nEpilogue, (2011) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/\\nNBK92141/.\\n 6 UP Rohr et al., The Value of In Vitro Diagnostic\\nTesting in Medical Practice: A Status Report, PLOS ONE\\n(March 2016), https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=\\n10.1371/journal.pone.0149856.\\n 7 I. Okeke et al., Diagnostics as Essential Tools for\\nContaining Antibacterial Resistance, 14 DRUG RESISTANCE\\nUPDATES 95, 101 (April 2011), https://www.sciencedi-\\nrect.com/science/article/pii/S1368764611000185?via%3Di-\\nhub; see also Mystery Solved! What is the Cost to Develop\\nand Launch a Diagnostic, DIACEUTICS (Jan. 15, 2013),\\nhttps://www.diaceutics.com/?expert-insight=mystery-\\nsolved-what-is-the-cost-to-develop-and-launch-a-diagnos-\\ntic (2013) (The average cost of developing a diagnostic in\\nthe U.S. is $50–75 million with development of expansion\\n\\n8 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\n Diagnostics economically depend on strong patent pro-\\ntection. Because they are typically characterized as “very\\nexpensive to develop but relatively cheap to reproduce,” pa-\\ntent protection is required to make it financially viable for\\ncontinued investment in their development. 8 As Senator\\nTillis explained in his opening statement during The State\\nof Patent Eligibility in America Senate hearings, “[w]hy\\nwould anyone in their right mind risk millions if not bil-\\nlions of dollars to develop a product when they have no idea\\nif they’re eligible for protection? From a business perspec-\\ntive, it simply isn’t worth the risk for many endeavors.” 9\\nWithout the possibility of patent protection to recoup the\\nhigh costs of research and development associated with di-\\nagnostic techniques and kits, the impact can only be that\\nthere will be fewer advances in diagnostic medicine. 10 In-\\ndustry leaders make clear that absent dependable patent\\n\\n\\nassays on existing platforms costing $10–15 million and de-\\nvelopment of new platforms costing over $100 million.).\\n 8 A. Krattiger, Promoting Access to Medical Innova-\\ntion, WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION (Sept.\\n2013), https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2013/05/ar-\\nticle_0002.html.\\n 9 The State of Patent Eligibility in America, Part I,\\n116th Cong. 3:32–47 (2019) (opening statement of Sen. Til-\\nlis).\\n 10 The State of Patent Eligibility in America, Part II,\\n116th Cong. 1–2 (2019) (written testimony of Rick Bran-\\ndon, Associate. General Counsel, University of Michigan\\nrepresenting Association of American Universities)\\n(“[I]nventors and investors often require the protection of a\\nperiod of exclusivity in order to assume the substantial risk\\nof investing the significant resources needed in order to\\nbring a product to the public. In the case of products that\\nrequire FDA approval, including diagnostics, this can take\\nyears and millions of dollars. The public benefits from both\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 9\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nprotection, companies will not move forward with diagnos-\\ntic innovations. 11 As investors routinely recognize, once\\npatent protection over medical technologies is lost, these\\ninnovations essentially become gifts to society and the com-\\npanies that developed them cannot recoup the time and\\nmoney they spent to do so. 12 It is these life-saving fields\\nthough, with such high costs to the initial market investor,\\nwhere patent protection is critical.\\n The importance of diagnostics and their cost-reducing\\neffects on patient treatment cannot reasonably be ques-\\ntioned. We are hard-pressed to identify facets of modern\\nmedicine that do not employ or rely on diagnostics. Diag-\\nnostics are “crucial in mitigating the effect of disease out-\\nbreaks.” 13 For example, had diagnostic techniques been\\n\\n\\n\\n\\npublic disclosure and a greater assurance of new products\\nand services.”).\\n 11 The State of Patent Eligibility in America, Part III,\\n116th Cong. 3 (2019) (written testimony of Peter O’Neill,\\nExecutive Director of Cleveland Clinic Innovations) (The\\n“[a]bility to get protectable intellectual property (usually in\\nthe form of a patent) is the first, and most influential factor\\nin our assessment. If an invention can’t get intellectual\\nproperty protection, usually that is a fatal flaw and the in-\\nvention is abandoned at that point.”).\\n 12 M. Rosenblatt, The Real Cost of “High-Priced”\\nDrugs, HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW (Nov. 17, 2014),\\nhttps://hbr.org/2014/11/the-real-cost-of-high-priced-drugs;\\nThe State of Patent Eligibility in America, Part I, 116th\\nCong. 1–2 (2019) (written testimony of Patrick Kilbride,\\nSenior Vice President of the Global Innovation Policy Cen-\\nter at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce).\\n 13 M. Perkins et al., Diagnostic Preparedness for In-\\nfectious Disease Outbreaks, 390 SCIENCEDIRECT 2211\\n\\n10 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\ndeveloped before the 2015 Ebola outbreak, and applied to\\npatients early enough, the population-attack rate of Ebola\\ncould have been reduced from 80% to 0%. Id. Ebola is only\\none example. “Poor diagnostic preparedness has [also] con-\\ntributed to significant delays in the identification of . . .\\nLassa Fever, yellow fever, and Zika.” 14 Disease epidemics\\nare not the only life-threatening conditions to which diag-\\nnostics provide a meaningful response. Diagnostics are\\npivotal to addressing the advent and increase in drug-re-\\nsistant infections. Current estimates project that by 2050,\\ndrug-resistant infections will “lead to 10 million people dy-\\ning every year and . . . would cost the world up to 100 tril-\\nlion” dollars. 15 Diagnostic tests are a critical component of\\nthe answer to this problem. Methicillin-Resistant Staphy-\\nlococcus Aureus (“MRSA”) is an example of an antibiotic-\\nresistant infection that burdens American hospitals in\\nterms of morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. 16 Its\\ntreatment, and the outcome of that treatment, depends on\\nappropriate diagnosis and antibiotic administration. Id.\\nAnd the effects of diagnostics in improving the detection\\nand treatment of cancer, human immunodeficiency virus,\\n\\n\\n(2017), https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/\\nPIIS0140-6736(17)31224-2/fulltext.\\n 14 C. Kelly-Cirino et al., Importance of Diagnostics in\\nEpidemic and Pandemic Preparedness, 4 BMJ GLOBAL\\nHEALTH (2019), https://gh.bmj.com/content/4/Suppl_2/\\ne001179.\\n 15 J. O’Neill, Antimicrobial Resistance: Tackling a cri-\\nsis for the health and wealth of nations, THE REV. ON\\nANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE, 6 (Dec. 2014).\\n 16 K. Bauer et al., An Antimicrobial Stewardship Pro-\\ngram’s Impact with Rapid Polymerase Chain Reaction\\nMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus/S. aureus\\nBlood Culture Test in Patients with S. aureus Bacteremia,\\n51 CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES 1074 (2010).\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 11\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nas well as in vitro care should not be overlooked. See Rohr,\\nsupra note 6. For example, diagnostics improved medical\\napproaches to cancer care, and will continue supporting\\nprogress in a field that cost an estimated $125 billion in the\\nUnited States in 2010. 17 Development of diagnostics plays\\na central role in American medical innovation as we face\\nincreasingly robust medical challenges, with a goal to save\\nlives and improve the quality of those lives.\\n Not only do diagnostics save lives, they reduce the cost\\nof treatment. The diagnostic industry drives medical costs\\ndown, not up. People suffering from illness or disease will\\ndo whatever they can to find a cure. Proper diagnoses al-\\nlow for earlier detection of illness and targeted treatment.\\nBut without proper diagnosis, patients have to endure nu-\\nmerous unsuccessful and costly treatments. Both the fi-\\nnancial burden of continued testing and treatment and the\\nemotional and physical tolls associated with suffering from\\nsymptoms, but not knowing the cause, can be reduced or\\neven prevented thanks to diagnostics. And when there are\\nspecific advances, discoveries, or inventions in the diagnos-\\ntics industry, they must be eligible for patent protection. 18\\n\\n\\n\\n 17 A. Mariotto et al., Projections of the Cost of Cancer\\nCare in the United States: 2010-2020, 103 J. NAT’L CANCER\\nINST. 117, 122 (2011), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/\\narticles/PMC3107566/.\\n 18 See R. Davis, Senate Scrutinizes Patent Bill’s Effect\\non Drug Prices, Genes, LAW360 (June 6, 2019),\\nhttps://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1164262/senate-scruti-\\nnizes-patent-bill-s-effect-on-drug-prices-genes?nl_pk=\\nc4844ff4-19ab-48d7-b2f9-9fa06ce87648&utm_source=\\nnewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ip (dis-\\ncussing Senator Tillis’ explanation that patent eligibility\\nuncertainty “has undermined investment in new medical\\nresearch and could prevent new drugs from being created,\\nmaking it a moot point how much they cost”).\\n\\n12 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\n Unless one opposes the notion of patent protection en-\\ntirely, it cannot be reasonably disputed that claims to diag-\\nnostic kits and techniques, like pharmaceuticals, which\\nrequire enormous initial investments in terms of both time\\nand money, are the reason we suffer the promise of a mo-\\nnopoly. As many have explained, without patent protec-\\ntion, there will be little incentive for companies to invest\\nthe monumental amount of time and money necessary to\\ndevelop diagnostic kits, tools and techniques. A recent ar-\\nticle, co-written by Paul Michel, former Chief Judge of the\\nFederal Circuit, and David Kappos, former Director of the\\nPTO, states:\\n This uncertain patent climate has a chilling effect\\n on innovation in biosciences to the detriment of\\n public health. . . . [I]nvestors are less interested in\\n funding costly new biomarker diagnostic research.\\n As a result, diseases will go undiagnosed, and pa-\\n tients will suffer the consequences. . . . Investment\\n in diagnostics goes to the core of containing spiral-\\n ing health care costs, improving patient outcomes\\n and treating illnesses before they become debilitat-\\n ing to suffering Americans. 19\\nThis sentiment was echoed by industry leaders during The\\nState of Patent Eligibility in America Senate hearings held\\non June 4–5 & 11, 2019. See The State of Patent Eligibility\\nin America, Part II, 116th Cong. 6–7 (2019) (written testi-\\nmony of Hans Sauer, Ph.D., Deputy General Counsel and\\nVice President for Intellectual Property, BIO) (“Absent the\\nability to protect their discoveries with valid patents . . .\\n\\n\\n 19 D. Kappos & P. Michel, Supreme Court Patent De-\\ncisions are Stifling Health Care Innovation, MORNING\\nCONSULT (Oct. 29, 2018), https://morningconsult.com/opin-\\nions/supreme-court-patent-decisions-stifling-health-care-\\ninnovation/.\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 13\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\ncompanies would lack the necessary incentive to make the\\nrisky, expensive, and time-consuming investments in re-\\nsearch and development often required to bring new tech-\\nnologies to market.”); The State of Patent Eligibility in\\nAmerica, Part II, 116th Cong. 9 (2019) (written testimony\\nof Henry Hadad, President, IPO) (“[C]onfusion about what\\nis patent-eligible discourages inventors from pursuing\\nwork in certain technology areas, including discovering\\nnew genetic biomarkers and developing diagnostic and ar-\\ntificial intelligence technologies. [This] uncertainty disin-\\ncentivizes the enormous investment in research and\\ndevelopment that is necessary to fuel the innovation cy-\\ncle.”); The State of Patent Eligibility in America, Part I,\\n116th Cong. 14:46–15:05 (2019) (opening statement of Sen.\\nCoons) (“I worry that this continuing lack of clarity . . . has\\nled to reduced investment in the expensive and intensive\\nresearch and development necessary to develop next gen-\\neration cures . . . .”); The State of Patent Eligibility in Amer-\\nica, Part III, 116th Cong. 1:22:12–1:22:35 (2019) (testimony\\nof Peter O’Neill, Executive Director of Cleveland Clinic In-\\nnovations) (“The work of translating discovery into com-\\nmercial products requires [patent] protection to justify the\\ninvestment into those discoveries. And absent clarity . . .\\nwe are not moving forward diagnostic discoveries to trans-\\nlate them into commercial products the way we would do\\notherwise.”); The State of Patent Eligibility in America,\\nPart III, 116th Cong. 1:42:12–1:42:28 (2019) (testimony of\\nCorey Salsberg, Vice President and Global Head Intellec-\\ntual Property Affairs for Novartis) (“Make no mistake\\nabout section 101, this is the gateway to the patent system.\\nSo what that means in practical terms is it’s a guide as to\\nwhich fields of technologies can support sustained invest-\\nment, and which ones likely cannot, and that’s why we\\nhave such deep concerns about the status quo.”); The State\\nof Patent Eligibility in America, Part III, 116th Cong. 1\\n(2019) (written testimony of Robert Deberardine, Chief In-\\ntellectual Property Counsel, Johnson & Johnson) (“It is\\nonly because of the United States patent system, and the\\n\\n14 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\npredictability that it has historically provided, that we\\nhave been able to make the investments, conduct the re-\\nsearch, and take the risks required to develop these treat-\\nments. And only with predictability will we be able [to]\\nsolve today’s most challenging healthcare problems and de-\\nvelop the groundbreaking treatments of tomorrow. Unfor-\\ntunately, the patent system in the United States today is\\nanything but predictable.”).\\n The math is simple, you need not be an economist to\\nget it: Without patent protection to recoup the enormous\\nR&D cost, investment in diagnostic medicine will decline.\\nTo put it simply, this is bad. It is bad for the health of the\\nAmerican people and the health of the American economy.\\nAnd it is avoidable depending on our interpretation of the\\nSupreme Court’s holding in Mayo. I have no doubt that my\\ncolleagues agree with the sentiments herein that diagnos-\\ntics are important, and that patent protection of such diag-\\nnostics is critical to incentivizing their very existence. The\\nonly point upon which we disagree is over the breadth of\\nthe Mayo holding.\\n ATHENA’S SPECIFICALLY CLAIMED METHOD IS ELIGIBLE\\n While Mayo did not require the result the panel\\nreached in this case, the panel could not disregard our\\nbinding precedent of cases like Ariosa, Cleveland Clinics,\\nand Roche which have interpreted Mayo as requiring this\\nper se rule. Thus, the only hope was en banc action.\\n It is my view that § 101 and Mayo, when read together\\nand in their entireties, compel the holding that the claims\\nin Athena are eligible. Under the Patent Act, “[w]hoever\\ninvents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,\\nmanufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and\\nuseful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,\\nsubject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35\\nU.S.C. § 101. Our decisions have ignored the truth that\\nclaims to specific, narrow processes, even if those processes\\ninvolve natural laws, are not directed to the natural laws\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 15\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nthemselves. And contrary to the “elementary principle\\nthat . . . [we must] ‘give effect, if possible, to every clause\\nand word of a statute,’” our § 101 jurisprudence has largely\\nignored Congress’ explicit instruction that a discovery can\\nbe the basis for a patentable invention. King v. Burwell,\\n135 S. Ct. 2480, 2498 (2015) (quoting Montclair v.\\nRamsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 152 (1883)). Section 101 refers to\\nboth “invent[ion] or discover[y],” and § 100(a) expressly de-\\nfines invention as any “invention or discovery.” We have\\nmisread Mayo and how it fits within the framework of the\\njudicially-created exceptions to § 101 for laws of nature,\\nnatural phenomena, and abstract ideas.\\n Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract\\nideas are considered “the basic tools of scientific and tech-\\nnological work.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,\\n573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Assoc. for Molecular Pa-\\nthology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589\\n(2013)). The Supreme Court excepted these categories\\nfrom § 101 to ensure that patent law does not “‘inhibit fur-\\nther discovery by improperly tying up the future use of’\\nthese building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (quoting\\nMayo, 566 U.S. at 85). Accordingly, “patents cannot issue\\nfor the discovery” of a law of nature. Funk Bros. Seed Co.\\nv. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948). Nor can a\\nclaim to the law of nature become patentable by simply\\n“adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72 (citing\\nGottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972)). But “an\\napplication of a law of nature . . . to a known structure or\\nprocess may well be deserving of patent protection.” Id. at\\n71 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981)).\\nWe have chosen to ignore the legal space between these\\nprinciples in favor of a swiftly executing, per se rule that\\nall diagnostic claims are ineligible. That conclusion is in-\\ncorrect.\\n By distinguishing between claims that recite a law of\\nnature and simply add the words “apply it,” and claims that\\n\\n16 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nrecite a concrete application of a law of nature, the Su-\\npreme Court suggests we should consider the level of spec-\\nificity in the claims to determine whether the claim is even\\ndirected to the natural law. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[I]f\\na patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere in-\\nstruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer,\\nthat addition cannot impart patent eligibility.”)); Mayo,\\n566 U.S. at 72 (“[T]o transform an unpatentable law of na-\\nture into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one\\nmust do more than simply state the law of nature while\\nadding the words ‘apply it.’”); Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192\\n(“[W]hen a claim recites a mathematical formula (or scien-\\ntific principle or phenomenon of nature), an inquiry must\\nbe made into whether the claim is seeking patent protec-\\ntion for that formula in the abstract. . . . [W]hen a claim\\ncontaining a mathematical formula implements or applies\\nthat formula in a structure or process which, when consid-\\nered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent\\nlaws were designed to protect (e.g., transforming or reduc-\\ning an article to a different state or thing), then the claim\\nsatisfies the requirements of § 101.”).\\n The law of nature at issue in Mayo was the “relation-\\nship between concentrations of certain metabolites in the\\nblood and the likelihood that a dosage of a thiopurine drug\\nwill prove ineffective or cause harm.” 566 U.S. at 77. Im-\\nportantly, this relationship was not a new discovery. “At\\nthe time the discoveries embodied in the patents were\\nmade, scientists already understood that the levels in a pa-\\ntient’s blood of certain metabolites . . . were correlated with\\nthe likelihood that a particular dosage of thiopurine drug\\ncould cause harm or prove ineffective.” Id. at 73. While\\nthe inventors characterized the precise correlation, they\\ncould not be said to have discovered the relationship in the\\nfirst place.\\n The Court began its analysis with the statement that\\n“[i]f a law of nature is not patentable, then neither is a pro-\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 17\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\ncess reciting a law of nature, unless that process has addi-\\ntional features that provide practical assurance that the\\nprocess is more than a drafting effort designed to monopo-\\nlize the law of nature itself.” Id. at 77–78. It examined the\\nlimitations of the representative claim, which recited:\\n A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for\\n treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal\\n disorder, comprising:\\n (a) administering a drug providing 6-thi-\\n oguanine to a subject having said immune-\\n mediated gastrointestinal disorder; and\\n (b) determining the level of 6-thioguanine\\n in said subject having said immune-medi-\\n ated gastrointestinal disorder,\\n wherein the level of 6-thioguanine less\\n than about 230 pmol per 8×108 red blood\\n cells indicates a need to increase the\\n amount of said drug subsequently adminis-\\n tered to said subject and\\n wherein the level of 6-thioguanine greater\\n than about 400 pmol per 8×108 red blood\\n cells indicates a need to decrease the\\n amount of said drug subsequently adminis-\\n tered to said subject.\\nId. at 74–75.\\n This claim in its entirety did nothing more than de-\\nscribe the natural relationship between metabolite concen-\\ntrations and the effective dose of a thiopurine drug. Id. at\\n77. “Unlike, say, a typical patent on a new drug or a new\\nway of using an existing drug, the patent claims d[id] not\\nconfine their reach to particular applications of those\\nlaws.” Id. at 87. The claimed steps were set forth in “highly\\ngeneral language covering all processes that make use of\\nthe correlations . . . including later discovered processes\\n\\n18 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nthat measure metabolite levels in new ways.” Id. at 87.\\nDue to their breadth, the Supreme Court concluded that\\nupholding the claims “would risk disproportionately tying\\nup the use of the underlying natural laws, inhibiting their\\nuse in the making of further discoveries.” Id. at 73; see also\\nid. at 87 (holding that “the basic underlying concern that\\nthese patents tie up too much future use of laws of nature”\\nreinforced the holding of ineligibility). “[S]imply append-\\ning conventional steps, specified at a high level of general-\\nity,” to the law of nature did not make that law patentable.\\nId. at 82 (emphasis added).\\n The breadth and generality of the Mayo claims led to\\ntheir demise, as they recited nothing more than the natural\\nlaw. We have since ignored these considerations, treating\\nevery claim that includes a law of nature as directed to that\\nlaw, even if the claim as a whole recites a specific way of\\napplying that law of nature to a new and useful end. We\\nshould not ignore the considerations related to claim\\nbreadth articulated in Mayo in our § 101 analysis.\\n The Athena claims differ significantly from the Mayo\\nclaims. In 1960, before the invention claimed in U.S. Pa-\\ntent No. 7,267,820 (“the ’820 patent”), scientists identified\\na specific category of autoantibodies that bind to and inter-\\nfere with the acetyl choline receptor (AChR)—which is re-\\nsponsible for the transmission of signals from neurons to\\nmuscle cells—cause Myasthenia gravis (“MG”). ’820 patent\\nat 1:24–26. The presence of these anti-AChR antibodies\\nthus indicates that the patient suffers from MG. However,\\n20% of patients who manifested MG-like symptoms did not\\nhave the anti-AChR antibodies. Id. at 1:34–40. It was un-\\nknown if this 20%, “have the same or a distinct and sepa-\\nrate MG condition,” id. at 1:41–42, and there was “no basis\\nfor providing an immediate clinical diagnosis for such pa-\\ntients,” id. at 4:20–22.\\n The inventors of the ’820 patent discovered that a dif-\\nferent type of autoantibody that binds to and interferes\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 19\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nwith muscle-specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK)—another re-\\nceptor also known to help transmit signals from neurons to\\nmuscles—can also cause MG. Id. at 1:54–61 (“The present\\ninventors surprisingly found that many of the 20% of MG\\npatients which do not exhibit any autoantibodies to AChR,\\ninstead have IgG antibodies . . . indicating that they are\\nafflicted with a form of MG which has a different etiology .\\n. . .”). The inventors in Athena discovered that these MG\\nsufferers produced the anti-MuSK antibody, and created a\\nprocess for diagnosing MG using methods that detect the\\npresence of that antibody. These methods had never before\\nbeen used to diagnose MG. Claims 7 and 9, on which the\\nmajority focused in Athena, require the use of specific la-\\nboratory techniques to diagnose a patient based on the nat-\\nural law that 20% of people having MG produce\\nautoantibodies to the MuSK protein. Claim 7 recites:\\n 1. A method for diagnosing neurotransmission or\\n developmental disorders related to muscle specific\\n tyrosine kinase (MuSK) in a mammal comprising\\n the step of detecting in a bodily fluid of said mam-\\n mal autoantibodies to an epitope of muscle specific\\n tyrosine kinase (MuSK).\\n 7. A method according to claim 1, comprising con-\\n tacting MuSK or an epitope or antigenic determi-\\n nant thereof having a suitable label thereon, with\\n said bodily fluid, immunoprecipitating any anti-\\n body/MuSK complex or antibody/MuSK epitope or\\n antigenic determinant complex from said bodily\\n fluid and monitoring for said label on any of said\\n antibody/MuSK complex or antibody/MuSK\\n epitope or antigen determinant complex, wherein\\n the presence of said label is indicative of said mam-\\n mal is suffering from said neurotransmission or de-\\n velopmental disorder related to muscle specific\\n tyrosine kinase (MuSK).\\n’820 patent at Claims 1, 7.\\n\\n20 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\n The claims provide for a method of diagnosing patients\\nwith MG using the following concrete steps: (1) contacting\\nthe patient’s bodily fluid with labeled MuSK, MuSK\\nepitope, or other antigenic determinant that binds any\\nanti-MuSK antibodies that may be present in the bodily\\nfluid; (2) immunoprecipitating any resulting complexes\\nfrom the bodily fluid; and (3) detecting the presence of the\\nanti-MuSK antibody by monitoring for the label, whereby\\nthe presence of the label indicates a diagnosis of MG. Id.\\nThese steps are not set out at the “high level of generality”\\nthat concerned the Court in Mayo, and they specifically\\nconfine their reach to a specific application of the relation-\\nship between anti-MuSK antibodies and MG. While the\\ncombination of steps in Mayo amounted to little “more than\\nan instruction to doctors to apply the applicable laws when\\ntreating their patients,” 566 U.S. at 79, claim 7 in Athena\\nis a single, specific method for applying the applicable law.\\n Indeed, the majority in this case repeatedly acknowl-\\nedged that the claims in Athena, unlike the claims in Mayo,\\ncontain specific, concrete steps applying the law of nature.\\nSee, e.g., Athena, 915 F.3d at 751 (“The claims at issue here\\ninvolve both the discovery of a natural law and certain con-\\ncrete steps to observe its operation.”). As the majority fur-\\nther acknowledged, claim 9, which depends on claim 7,\\n“leaves open to the public other ways of interrogating the\\ncorrelation between MuSK autoantibodies and MuSK-re-\\nlated disorders without practicing the claim’s concrete\\nsteps.” Id. at 752. In fact, the ’820 patent identifies alter-\\nnate methods for detecting antibodies, such as MuSK-re-\\nlated antibodies. See ’820 patent at 3:33–4:12. The claims\\ndo not “broadly preempt the use of a natural law,” and do\\nnot prevent any scientist from using the natural law in as-\\nsociation with other common processes. Mayo, 566 U.S. at\\n72; see Myriad, 569 U.S. at 595–96. The concreteness and\\nspecificity of the claims in Athena moves them from recit-\\ning a law of nature to a particular application of a law of\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 21\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nnature. The claims are not directed to a natural law or\\nphenomenon.\\n The inventiveness of the claimed discovery in the pro-\\ncess steps should also be considered when assessing eligi-\\nbility. New and useful discoveries, such as the before\\nunknown relationship between anti-MuSK autoantibodies\\nand MG, when applied in a “process,” should pass muster\\nas eligible under the statutory text of § 101. Our decision\\nto entirely disregard the discovery incorporated in the\\nclaims is a misapplication of the statute. This is not to say\\nthat a claim on the discovery of a law of nature itself or a\\nnatural phenomenon should be eligible. I agree it should\\nnot. But to wholly ignore the inventiveness of the discovery\\nwhen assessing patent eligibility closes our eyes to the stat-\\nute enacted by Congress. Athena discovered that 20% of\\npeople suffering from MG generate autoantibodies that\\nbind to a MuSK protein. Its claims recite concrete steps to\\ndetect the presence of autoantibodies to MuSK to diagnose\\nMG. These antibody/MuSK complexes had never been\\nused by prior art MG diagnostic tests. In contrast, the\\nclaims in Mayo recited a generic “determining” step, with\\nno laboratory test at all specified by the claims, and the\\nspecification itself stated that the methods were “well-un-\\nderstood, routine, and conventional activity already en-\\ngaged in by the scientific community.” 566 U.S. at 79.\\nMoreover, the Court explained that scientists had rou-\\ntinely performed that very step on thiopurine metabolites,\\nthe metabolite being detected in the claim. Id. at 78. This\\nis not at all the case in Athena. The claims are directed to\\na new and useful process of specific, concrete steps for di-\\nagnosing MG using a particular immunoassay that had\\nnever been previously used to diagnose MG. The claims\\nshould be held patent eligible under § 101 and Mayo.\\n I do not believe that the Supreme Court intended Mayo\\nto be the sweeping decision it has become. Indeed, it\\nwarned us that “too broad an interpretation of” its judicial\\n\\n22 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nexceptions to eligibility “could eviscerate patent law” be-\\ncause “all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect,\\nrest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or\\nabstract ideas.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71. I do not understand\\nMayo to render ineligible a claim which covers a specific,\\nconcrete application of a natural law simply because such\\na claim is diagnostic as opposed to therapeutic. Both\\nshould be eligible. The last word on this from the Supreme\\nCourt came in Myriad where the Court made clear “patents\\non new applications of knowledge about BRCA1 and\\nBRCA2 genes” could be eligible. 569 U.S. at 596. To the\\nextent that this Court has read Mayo so broadly that it pre-\\ncludes exactly that sort of patent, we have erred. Doing so\\nleaves Mayo at odds with the patent statutes and the later\\nMyriad decision.\\n CONCLUSION\\n “It’s important for the judiciary to first recognize that\\nthere is a problem that needs to be addressed . . . 101 re-\\nmains the most important substantive patent law issue in\\nthe United States today. And it’s not even close.” R. Davis,\\nCourts Can Resolve Patent Eligibility Problems, Iancu\\nSays, LAW 360 (Apr. 11, 2019) (quoting U.S. Patent and\\nTrademark Office Director Iancu). In the wake of Mayo,\\nwe have painted with a broad brush, suggesting that im-\\nproved diagnostic techniques are not patent eligible. Mayo\\ndid not go so far, and given the import of diagnostic tech-\\nniques, we should reconsider this case and clarify our prec-\\nedent. Because my colleagues have declined to do so, there\\nare no more options at this court for diagnostic patents. My\\ncolleagues’ refusal deflates the Amici’s hopeful suggestion\\nthat our precedent leaves the eligibility of a diagnostic\\nclaim in front of the Federal Circuit “uncertain.” It is no\\nlonger uncertain. Since Mayo, every diagnostic claim to\\ncome before this court has been held ineligible. While we\\nbelieve that such claims should be eligible for patent pro-\\ntection, the majority of this court has definitively concluded\\nthat the Supreme Court prevents us from so holding. No\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 23\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nneed to waste resources with additional en banc requests.\\nYour only hope lies with the Supreme Court or Congress. I\\nhope that they recognize the importance of these technolo-\\ngies, the benefits to society, and the market incentives for\\nAmerican business. And, oh yes, that the statute clearly\\npermits the eligibility of such inventions and that no judi-\\ncially-created exception should have such a vast embrace.\\nIt is neither a good idea, nor warranted by the statute. I\\ndissent.\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD\\n UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCK-\\n GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER\\n WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA\\nMAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC,\\n Defendants-Appellees\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2508\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Massachusetts in No. 1:15-cv-40075-IT, Judge\\nIndira Talwani.\\n ______________________\\n\\nNEWMAN, Circuit Judge, with whom WALLACH, Circuit\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4413809/\", \"author_raw\": \"and STOLL, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting\"}, {\"author\": \"Judge, joins, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"Judge, joins, dissenting from denial of the petition for re-\\nhearing en banc.\\n The majority of the court has voted not to rehear this\\ncase en banc. I write again in dissent because of the im-\\nportance of medical diagnosis and the critical role of the\\npatent system in achieving new diagnostic methods. Diag-\\nnostic methods are costly in research and development,\\nfrom scientific discovery through federal approval, and are\\nof substantial public benefit—exemplified by Athena’s\\n\\n2 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nmethod of diagnosing Myasthenia Gravis in persons previ-\\nously undiagnosable. The patent system provides the eco-\\nnomic foundation for the cycle of experimental study,\\nclinical evaluation and proof, and implementation in com-\\nmerce. This foundation applies to diagnosis as well as to\\ntreatment.\\n The panel majority held that the new diagnostic\\nmethod in U.S. Patent No. 7,267,820 (“the ’820 patent”)\\nwas not eligible for patenting under section 101 of the Pa-\\ntent Act. Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative\\nServs., LLC, 915 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Newman, J.,\\ndissenting). The panel majority stated that “the Supreme\\nCourt has effectively told us in Mayo that correlations be-\\ntween the presence of a biological material and a disease\\nare laws of nature,” and therefore methods for determining\\npreviously unknown correlations for diagnostic purposes\\nare not patent-eligible. Id. at 753 n.4.\\n The majority’s position is a flawed interpretation of the\\nCourt’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prome-\\ntheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012). The Court did\\nnot hold that methods of diagnosis are subject to unique\\npatent-eligibility rules. We have mistakenly enlarged the\\nCourt’s holding, in substance and in application. Rehear-\\ning en banc is warranted.\\n I summarize the reasons for concern:\\n I\\n The Supreme Court’s Mayo decision did not con-\\n vert diagnostic methods into laws of nature\\n Until Athena’s invention of the diagnostic method de-\\nscribed in the ’820 patent, some 20% of patients suffering\\nfrom Myasthenia Gravis were not capable of being diag-\\nnosed. The ’820 patent describes and claims a multi-step\\nmethod wherein for such patients the presence in bodily\\nfluid of autoantibodies to a protein, muscle-specific tyro-\\nsine kinase (MuSK), is detected by “binding of a MuSK or\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 3\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nits epitope, together with a revealing label, to the autoan-\\ntibodies in the serum or bodily fluid.” ’820 patent, col. 3,\\nl. 66–col. 4, l. 2. The ’820 patent explains that “[t]he pre-\\nsent inventors surprisingly found that many of the 20% of\\nMG patients which do not exhibit any autoantibodies to\\nAChR [acetyl choline receptor] instead have IgG [immuno-\\nglobulin] antibodies directed against the extracellular N-\\nterminal domains of MuSK.” Id., col. 1, ll. 54–57.\\n These antibodies and their reaction with the MuSK\\nprotein were not known, nor the use of this procedure to\\ndiagnose Myasthenia Gravis. The separate chemical steps\\nof radioactive labelling, reaction of an antibody with a pro-\\ntein, separation of the reaction product, and analysis of ra-\\ndioactivity, are described in the specification as conducted\\nby conventional methods. However, the panel majority\\nheld that this new diagnostic method is not patent-eligible,\\nstating that “claims 7–9 are directed to a natural law be-\\ncause the claimed advance was only in the discovery of a\\nnatural law, and that the additional recited steps only ap-\\nply conventional techniques to detect that natural law.”\\nAthena, 915 F.3d at 751. This statement is a misapplica-\\ntion of the patent statute, and a misperception of the\\nCourt’s decision in Mayo.\\n At issue are patent claims 7–9, shown with claim 1\\nfrom which they depend:\\n 1. A method for diagnosing neurotransmission\\n or developmental disorders related to muscle spe-\\n cific tyrosine kinase (MuSK) in a mammal compris-\\n ing the step of detecting in a bodily fluid of said\\n mammal autoantibodies to an epitope of muscle\\n specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK).\\n 7. A method according to claim 1, comprising\\n contacting MuSK or an epitope or antigenic de-\\n terminant thereof having a suitable label thereon,\\n with said bodily fluid,\\n\\n4 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\n immunoprecipitating any antibody/MuSK com-\\n plex or antibody/MuSK epitope or antigenic deter-\\n minant complex from said bodily fluid and\\n monitoring for said label on any of said anti-\\n body/MuSK complex or antibody/MuSK epitope or\\n antigen determinant complex,\\n wherein the presence of said label is indicative\\n of said mammal is suffering from said neurotrans-\\n mission or developmental disorder related to mus-\\n cle specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK).\\n 8. A method according to claim 7 wherein said\\n label is a radioactive label.\\n 9. A method according to claim 8 wherein said\\n label is 125I [iodine isotope 125].\\n The reaction between the specified antibodies and the\\nMuSK protein was not previously known, and the specified\\nclaim steps had not previously been performed, separately\\nor in combination. This method of diagnosing Myasthenia\\nGravis and related disorders is conceded to be new and un-\\nobvious.\\n The ’820 patent specification teaches that each claim\\nstep is conducted by conventional procedures, that is, pro-\\ncedures for creating a radioactively labelled compound, re-\\nacting an antibody with a protein, separating any\\nantibody-protein complex, and monitoring the radioactiv-\\nity of the product. The panel majority holds that since the\\nseparate steps are “conventional,” they do not count in the\\nsection 101 analysis, leaving claims 7–9 with only the gen-\\neral “concept” of “the correlation between the presence of\\nnaturally-occurring MuSK autoantibodies in bodily fluid\\nand MuSK-related neurological diseases like MG.” Athena,\\n915 F.3d at 750. The panel majority concluded that “[t]he\\n’820 patent thus describes the claimed invention princi-\\npally as a discovery of a natural law, not as an\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 5\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nimprovement in the underlying immunoassay technology.”\\nId. at 751.\\n The Court in Mayo admonished against “too broadly\\npreempt[ing] the use of a natural law.” 566 U.S. at 72.\\nClaims 7–9 claim a new multi-step method of diagnosis; it\\nis incorrect to omit from the claims the steps by which the\\nmethod is performed, leaving only the “concept” of the gen-\\neral purpose. En banc review is needed to provide con-\\nsistent and correct application of statute and precedent to\\nmethods of medical diagnosis.\\n II\\n Statute and precedent require that the claimed\\n invention is considered as a whole\\n The Court explained this principle in KSR Int’l Co. v.\\nTeleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007):\\n [I]nventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon\\n building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed\\n discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations\\n of what, in some sense, is already known.\\nId. at 418–19. The Court had explored this principle in Di-\\namond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981):\\n In determining the eligibility of respondents’\\n claimed process for patent protection under § 101,\\n their claims must be considered as a whole.\\nId. at 188. The Court stressed that:\\n It is inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and\\n new elements and then to ignore the presence of\\n the old elements in the analysis.\\nId. The Court further explained that this rule applies to\\npatent eligibility as it does to patentability:\\n The “novelty” of any element or steps in a process,\\n or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in\\n\\n6 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\n determining whether the subject matter of a claim\\n falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patent-\\n able subject matter.\\nId. at 188–89; see also, e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584,\\n594 (1978) (“[A] patent claim must be considered as a\\nwhole.”); Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.,\\n365 U.S. 336, 344 (1961) (“[I]f anything is settled in the pa-\\ntent law, it is that the combination patent covers only the\\ntotality of the elements in the claim and that no element,\\nseparately viewed, is within the grant.”).\\n This established rule does not evaporate when the sub-\\nject matter is a diagnostic method. The Mayo Court did not\\neffect such a change. The Court reiterated in Alice Corp.\\nPty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014), that\\n“an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply\\nbecause it involves an abstract concept” in some of its claim\\nelements. There is no support in the Court’s precedent for\\nour abandonment of the invention-as-a-whole in determin-\\ning eligibility under section 101.\\n The purpose of section 101 is to provide a broad statu-\\ntory scope to inventive activity. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561\\nU.S. 593, 605 (2010) (“Section 101 is a dynamic provision\\ndesigned to encompass new and unforeseen inventions.”\\n(internal quotation marks omitted)); Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187\\n(“[A]n application of a law of nature or mathematical for-\\nmula to a known structure or process may well be deserv-\\ning of patent protection.”). In Diamond v. Chakrabarty,\\n447 U.S. 303 (1980), the Court observed that “Congress em-\\nployed broad general language in drafting § 101 precisely\\nbecause such inventions are often unforeseeable,” id. at\\n316, and that the legislative history of the 1952 Patent Act\\nshowed that “Congress intended statutory subject matter\\nto ‘include anything under the sun that is made by man,’”\\nid. at 309 (quoting S. Rep. No. 1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 5\\n(1952); H.R. Rep. No. 1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1952)).\\nThe Mayo Court cautioned that\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 7\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\n too broad an interpretation of this exclusionary\\n principle could eviscerate patent law. For all in-\\n ventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest\\n upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena,\\n or abstract ideas.\\n566 U.S. at 71.\\n The Federal Circuit has respected this long-standing\\nprinciple in contexts other than for diagnostic methods.\\nSee, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc.,\\n837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[C]ourts must be\\ncareful to avoid oversimplifying the claims by looking at\\nthem generally and failing to account for the specific re-\\nquirements of the claims.” (internal quotation marks omit-\\nted)). However, we have strayed in our rulings on\\ndiagnostic methods; our flawed analysis is summarized by\\nthe majority in Athena, 915 F.3d at 753 n.4 (“We have since\\nconfirmed that applying somewhat specific yet conven-\\ntional techniques . . . to detect a newly discovered natural\\nlaw does not confer eligibility under § 101.”).\\n When viewed on correct law and precedent, Athena’s\\ndiagnostic method meets the requirements of section 101.\\nThe appropriate analysis of patentability is under sections\\n102, 103, and 112; not section 101.\\n III\\n The Court in Mayo did not create a section 101\\n distinction between diagnostic methods and\\n therapeutic methods\\n In Mayo the Court discussed the method at issue in\\nthat case, and concluded that “upholding the patents would\\nrisk disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying\\nnatural laws, inhibiting their use in the making of further\\ndiscoveries.” 566 U.S. at 73. The Court did not hold that\\nevery diagnostic method ties up a natural law, and the\\nAthena panel majority acknowledged that “we agree that\\nclaim 9 leaves open to the public other ways of\\n\\n8 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\ninterrogating the correlation between MuSK autoantibod-\\nies and MuSK-related disorders without practicing the\\nclaim’s concrete steps.” 915 F.3d at 752.\\n Athena’s diagnostic method is not a law of nature; it is\\na novel man-made method of diagnosis of a neurological\\ndisorder. The Athena diagnostic method, a multi-step\\nmethod performed by a combination of specific chemical\\nand biological steps, was unknown in the prior art. The\\nCourt in Mayo did not exclude such methods from eligibil-\\nity for patenting.\\n Following is an outline of this court’s inconsistent rul-\\nings between diagnosis and treatment of disease:\\n A. Methods of diagnosis, held ineligible under\\n section 101\\n 1. In re BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer\\nTest Patent Litigation, 774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The\\nclaimed invention is a method for screening for genes\\nlinked to inherited breast and ovarian cancer, by analyzing\\nfor certain mutations in the DNA. The court held the\\nclaims ineligible under section 101 as directed to a law of\\nnature, and also held that identifying genetic mutations is\\nan ineligible abstract idea.\\n 2. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d\\n1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The claimed invention is a method\\nfor detecting paternally-inherited fetal abnormalities by\\nanalyzing the blood or serum of a pregnant female. The\\ncourt held the claims ineligible under section 101, while\\nrecognizing that “detecting cffDNA in maternal plasma or\\nserum that before was discarded as waste material is a pos-\\nitive and valuable contribution to science.” Id. at 1380.\\n 3. Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d\\n1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claimed invention is a method\\nfor detecting a coding region of DNA based on its relation-\\nship to non-coding regions, by amplifying genomic DNA\\nwith a primer spanning a non-coding sequence in genetic\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 9\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nlinkage to an allele to be detected. The court stated that\\n“the patent claim focuses on a newly discovered fact about\\nhuman biology,” id. at 1376, and that this is a law of nature\\nand is ineligible subject matter under section 101.\\n 4. Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diag-\\nnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The claimed\\ninvention is a method for diagnosing risk of cardiovascular\\ndisease by analyzing for the enzyme myeloperoxidase\\n(“MPO”). The court held that even though prior methods\\nfor detecting MPO were inferior, the discovery of how to\\ndirectly analyze for MPO, and discovery of the relation to\\nthe risk of cardiovascular disease, although “groundbreak-\\ning, ‘even such valuable contributions can fall short of stat-\\nutory patentable subject matter.’” Id. at 1363 (quoting\\nAriosa, 788 F.3d at 1380).\\n 5. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905\\nF.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claimed invention is a\\nmethod for detecting the pathogenic bacterium Mycobacte-\\nrium tuberculosis (“MTB”), based on nucleotide content\\nand a novel method of analysis. The court stated that the\\nmethod is new, unobvious, and “both faster and more accu-\\nrate than the traditional MTB detection methods,” id. at\\n1366, but held that the method is ineligible under section\\n101.\\n 6. Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diag-\\nnostics LLC, 760 F. App’x 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The\\nclaimed invention is the novel immunoassay to detect the\\ncorrelation between blood MPO levels and cardiovascular\\ndisease. The court held that the claims are for a law of\\nnature and ineligible under section 101.\\n In all of these diagnostic cases the claims were held in-\\neligible under section 101, whether or not the method of\\ndiagnosis was new and unobvious, and independent of pa-\\ntentability under sections 102, 103, and 112.\\n\\n10 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\n B. Methods of treatment, held eligible under\\n section 101\\n 1. Rapid Litigation Management Ltd. v. CellzDirect,\\nInc., 827 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claimed invention\\nis a “method of producing a desired preparation of multi-\\ncryopreserved hepatocytes [liver cells].” Id. at 1047. The\\ncourt stated that “the natural ability of the subject matter\\nto undergo the process does not make the claim ‘directed to’\\nthat natural ability,” id. at 1049 (emphasis omitted), and\\n“[t]his type of constructive process, carried out by an arti-\\nsan to achieve ‘a new and useful end,’ is precisely the type\\nof claim that is eligible for patenting,” id. at 1048 (quoting\\nAlice, 573 U.S. at 217).\\n 2. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharma-\\nceuticals Int’l Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The\\nclaimed invention is a method of treating schizophrenia\\nwith the known drug iloperidone, where the dose is ad-\\njusted based on whether the patient is a “CYP2D6 poor me-\\ntabolizer.” Id. at 1121. The method uses genetic testing to\\ndetermine CYP2D6 metabolism. The court held that this\\nis “a specific method of treatment for specific patients using\\na specific compound at specific doses to achieve a specific\\noutcome,” id. at 1136, and is eligible under section 101.\\n 3. Natural Alternatives Int’l, Inc. v. Creative Com-\\npounds, LLC, 918 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The claimed\\ninvention is a method of increasing athletic performance by\\nadministering beta-alanine in larger quantities. The court\\nheld the method eligible under section 101, although the\\nmechanism was a natural effect.\\n 4. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals\\nUSA, Inc., 919 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The claimed in-\\nvention is a method of treating patients with oxymorphone,\\nbased on the discovery that patients with impaired kidney\\nfunction need less oxymorphone for pain relief. The court\\nstated that the method was patent-eligible, for “the claims\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 11\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nhere are directed to a treatment method, not a detection\\nmethod.” Id. at 1356 (emphasis in original).\\n IV\\n The amici curiae advise on the consequences of\\n our rulings 1\\n The major biotech industry organizations advise that\\nour court’s application of Mayo “has caused great uncer-\\ntainty to the industry, and . . . has called into doubt innu-\\nmerable biotech patents.” Biotechnology Innovation\\nOrganization (BIO) Br. at 3. BIO discusses the incon-\\nsistency of our section 101 rulings, and points out that\\n“[t]he panel decision reflects a troubling divergence in this\\ncourt’s section 101 jurisprudence between software and bi-\\notech inventions,” explaining that in software cases the\\nthreshold analysis focuses on whether the claims contain a\\ntechnical improvement over the prior art, whereas this as-\\npect is absent from our biotech analyses. Id. at 9.\\n The amici discuss the adverse effect of our section 101\\nrulings on advances in medical diagnosis. Seven Law Pro-\\nfessors state that “diagnostic tests form[] the basis of 60%–\\n70% of all medical treatment decisions,” and “[d]iagnostic\\ntests have immense benefits for patient care and greatly\\nreduce associated costs, including decreasing hospitaliza-\\ntion and avoiding unnecessary treatment.” Profs. Br. at 11\\n(citing The Value of Diagnostics Innovation, Adoption and\\nDiffusion into Health Care (July 2005), available at\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Amicus curiae briefs were filed by the Biotechnol-\\nogy Innovation Organization, Pharmaceutical Research\\nand Manufacturers of America, Croplife International,\\nWisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Seven Law Pro-\\nfessors, and Freenome Holdings Inc. and Achillion Phar-\\nmaceuticals, Inc.\\n\\n12 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nhttps://dx.advamed.org/sites/dx.advamed.org/files/resource/\\nLewin%20Value%20of%20Diagnostics%20Report.pdf).\\n The Law Professors state that “[t]he economics of the\\nR&D and commercialization of innovative diagnostic tests\\nreflect the core economic justification for the patent sys-\\ntem: The marginal cost of making a diagnostic test is rela-\\ntively low, but the ex ante R&D costs can be enormous,”\\nstating that the cost of commercializing a diagnostic test is\\nbetween $50-$100 million. Id. at 11–12 (citing Diaceutics\\nGroup, Mystery Solved! What is the Cost to Develop and\\nLaunch a Diagnostic? (2013), available at https://www.di-\\naceutics.com/?expert-insight=mystery-solved-what-is-the-\\ncost-to-develop-and-launch-a-diagnostic). The Law Profes-\\nsors state that by “creat[ing] an unduly restrictive patent\\neligibility doctrine under § 101, the majority decision and\\nmany other court decisions send the wrong message to in-\\nnovators that groundbreaking diagnostic tests born of the\\nbiotechnological arts in the modern biopharmaceutical in-\\ndustry are virtually per se unpatentable under § 101.” Id.\\nat 13.\\n Amici curiae Freenome Holdings and Achillion Phar-\\nmaceuticals suggest that our jurisprudence contravenes\\n“promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” U.S.\\nConst. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. These amici point to the judicial\\nduty to construe section 101 to include both inventions and\\ndiscoveries, and that discovery of a new diagnostic method\\nis within the constitutional purpose.\\n I repeat that “the public interest is poorly served by\\nadding disincentive to the development of new diagnostic\\nmethods. This is a severe criticism; and when presented\\nby the entire industry, and stressed by thoughtful scholars,\\nit warrants judicial attention.” Athena, 915 F.3d at 762\\n(Newman, J., dissenting).\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 13\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\n The need for en banc action\\n The judicial responsibility is to provide clear and con-\\nsistent law in conformity with statute. Our holdings on\\nmedical diagnostics contravene the admonition that courts\\n“should not read into the patent laws limitations and con-\\nditions which the legislature has not expressed.”\\nChakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 308.\\n The legislative plan is for an incentive system that sup-\\nports advances in useful technologies by enabling innova-\\ntors to benefit economically. The patent statute requires\\nthat the new knowledge is disclosed to the public, where it\\nadds to the body of knowledge and, in turn, may be studied\\nand built upon. No benefit has been suggested by exclud-\\ning medical diagnostic methods from the patent incentive\\nsystem.\\n This case presents an opportunity for judicial review\\nand judicial remedy. Although diagnostic methods are not\\nthe only area in which section 101 jurisprudence warrants\\nattention, Federal Circuit precedent is ripe for reconsider-\\nation specific to diagnostic methods, to correct our applica-\\ntion of the Mayo decision and to restore the necessary\\neconomic incentive. As summarized by Senators Chris\\nCoons and Thom Tillis, co-chairs of the Senate Subcommit-\\ntee that is conducting hearings on proposed remedial legis-\\nlation, “courts have clouded the line to exclude critical\\nmedical advances like life-saving precision medicine and\\ndiagnostics,” and “studies showed that investors familiar\\nwith the current lack of clarity invest less in critical re-\\nsearch and development in areas like medical diagnostics.”\\nThe Senators stated that “[e]ven some witnesses advocat-\\ning against broad reform conceded that there are problems\\nwith the current system, particularly in the life sciences.”\\nReport available at https://www.law360.com/articles/1171672/\\nwhat-coons-and-tillis-learned-at-patent-reform-hearings\\n(June 21, 2019).\\n\\n14 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\n From my colleagues’ denial of en banc review, I respect-\\nfully dissent.\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD\\n UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCK-\\n GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER\\n WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA\\nMAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC,\\n Defendants-Appellees\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2508\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Massachusetts in No. 1:15-cv-40075-IT, Judge\\nIndira Talwani.\\n ______________________\\n\\nSTOLL, Circuit Judge, with whom WALLACH, Circuit\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4413809/\", \"author_raw\": \"Judge, joins, dissenting\"}, {\"author\": \"Judge, joins, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"Judge, joins, dissenting from the denial of the petition for\\nrehearing en banc.\\n In a series of cases since the Supreme Court’s decision\\nin Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories,\\nInc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), we have established a bright-line\\nrule of ineligibility for all diagnostic claims. See, e.g., Ari-\\nosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371,\\n1377 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (rejecting a diagnostic claim because\\nthe “only subject matter new and useful as of the date of\\n\\n2 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nthe application was the discovery of the presence of cffDNA\\nin maternal plasma or serum”). This rule as applied to the\\nfacts of this case dictated that the majority panel find the\\nclaimed invention ineligible. But, because this court’s\\nbright-line rule is based on an over-reaching and flawed\\ntest for eligibility, a test that undermines the constitu-\\ntional rationale for having a patent system—promoting the\\nprogress of science and useful arts—the court should take\\nthis opportunity to correct its erroneous rule. So, while I\\nstand by the panel decision in this case, I write separately\\nto dissent from the denial of en banc rehearing because the\\nquestion of the eligibility of diagnostic inventions is exactly\\nthe type of exceptionally important issue that warrants full\\nconsideration by this court.\\n Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35 directs us to\\norder rehearing en banc when “the proceeding involves a\\nquestion of exceptional importance.” Fed. R. App. P.\\n35(a)(2). A question is of exceptional importance if it cre-\\nates “important systemic consequences for the develop-\\nment of the law and the administration of justice.” Watson\\nv. Geren, 587 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 2009). As Judge New-\\nman and Judge Moore aptly describe, a wholesale bar on\\npatent eligibility for diagnostic claims has far-reaching and\\nlong-ranging implications for the development of life-sav-\\ning diagnostic methods. The eligibility of life-saving inven-\\ntions is not only one of the most important issues of patent\\nlaw, but of human health. Thus, the importance of the is-\\nsue here mandates that we consider it en banc.\\n Interpreting Mayo, our prior opinions seem to take for\\ngranted that the Supreme Court has foreclosed all avenues\\nof patent protection for diagnostic claims. As Judge Moore\\npoints out, we have held every diagnostic claim in every\\ncase before us ineligible. Dissent Op. at 2 (Moore, J.). Our\\ninflexible following of Mayo has created flawed decisions\\nthat are inconsistent with the precepts of Mayo and our pa-\\ntent system as a whole. The Mayo test was guided by\\nbroad-sweeping principles that are not applicable to every\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 3\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nindividual diagnostic claim. For example, Mayo empha-\\nsizes that patent eligibility cannot apply to “processes that\\ntoo broadly preempt the use of a natural law.” 566 U.S. at\\n72. Certain diagnostic claims, such as the ones at issue in\\nthis case, are so narrowly tailored that preemption is not a\\nreasonable concern.\\n Given the importance of this question, I would urge the\\nen banc court to take the opportunity to entertain the\\nthoughtful argument and fully developed record that such\\nreview would provide, and reconsider this critically im-\\nportant issue. As Congress’s recent interest in § 101 legis-\\nlation has demonstrated, there are a variety of\\nstakeholders that consider this issue to be vitally im-\\nportant. En banc rehearing would not only permit us to\\nhave a more extensive view of the various considerations\\nunderlying Mayo, but it would also allow us to create judi-\\ncial doctrine geared toward the practical application of\\nMayo’s principles. At the very least, en banc review would\\nhelp the court develop an articulable standard for its § 101\\njurisprudence moving forward.\\n In my view, by consistently bypassing en banc review\\nof a critical issue that goes to the heart of this court’s juris-\\ndiction, we are abdicating our responsibility. For this rea-\\nson, I respectfully dissent.\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD\\n UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCK-\\n GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER\\n WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA\\nMAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC,\\n Defendants-Appellees\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2508\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Massachusetts in No. 1:15-cv-40075-IT, Judge\\nIndira Talwani.\\n ______________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4413809/\", \"author_raw\": \"Judge, joins, dissenting\"}, {\"author\": \"O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of the\\npetition for rehearing en banc.\\n I agree with all aspects of Judge Moore’s thoughtful\\ndissent. Indeed, I agree with all my dissenting colleagues\\nthat our precedent applies the Supreme Court’s holding in\\nMayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories,\\nInc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) too broadly. I write separately,\\nhowever, because I believe that confusion and disagree-\\nments over patent eligibility have been engendered by the\\n\\n2 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nfact that the Supreme Court has ignored Congress’s direc-\\ntion to the courts to apply 35 U.S.C. sections 101, et seq\\n(“Patent Act”) as written. Specifically, the Supreme Court\\nhas instructed federal courts to read into Section 101 an\\n“inventive concept” requirement—a baffling standard that\\nCongress removed when it amended the Patent Act in\\n1952. I encourage Congress to amend the Patent Act once\\nmore to clarify that it meant what it said in 1952.\\n I begin with some historical perspective. After World\\nWar II, federal courts were invalidating patents at break-\\nneck speed. Lawrence Baum, The Federal Courts and Pa-\\ntent Validity: An Analysis of the Record, 56 J. Patent Office\\nSoc’y 758, 760 tbl. 1 (1974) (showing that federal appellate\\ncourts, on average, invalidated patents at a rate of 77% be-\\ntween 1941–1945), 777 tbl. 5 (showing that the Supreme\\nCourt invalidated patents at a rate higher than 81% from\\n1921–1973, except during 1953–1964 when the Court did\\nnot issue any decisions on patent validity). As Justice\\nJackson wrote, it seemed the only valid patent was “one\\nwhich [the Supreme Court] ha[d] not been able to get its\\nhands on.” Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co., 335 U.S. 560,\\n572 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting). This was due, in large\\npart, to what became known as the “invention require-\\nment”—itself “invented” by the Supreme Court rather than\\nCongress or the Constitution. Applying this requirement\\nmeant asking whether a patent evidenced “invention.”\\n Prominent jurists of that time remarked that the re-\\nquirement was unworkable. Judge Learned Hand opined\\nthat, under this requirement, “‘invention’ became perhaps\\nthe most baffling concept in the whole catalogue of judicial\\nefforts to provide postulates for indefinitely varying occa-\\nsions.” Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 224 F.2d 530,\\n536 (2d Cir. 1955). According to Judge Giles Rich, because\\ninventiveness “is an unmeasurable quantity having differ-\\nent meanings for different persons,” the invention require-\\nment “left every judge practically scott-free to decide this\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 3\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\noften controlling factor according to his personal philoso-\\nphy of what inventions should be patented.” Giles S. Rich,\\nThe Vague Concept of Invention as Replaced by Sec. 103 of\\nthe 1952 Patent Act, 46 J. Patent Office Soc’y 855, 865\\n(1964) (internal quotations and citations omitted). If the\\ninvention requirement and its criticisms sound familiar,\\nthat is because they are.\\n Congress attempted to address these criticisms by\\namending the Patent Act to replace the ill-defined and ju-\\ndicially-created invention requirement with the more\\nworkable anticipation and obviousness tests codified in\\nSections 102 and 103. Patent Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-\\n593, § 103, 66 Stat. 792, 798 (1952); see, e.g., H.R. 4061,\\n80th Cong. (1947) (as introduced to the H. Comm. on the\\nJudiciary, July 1, 1947) (“A BILL To establish a criterion\\nof invention with respect to patent applications and issued\\npatents[.]”); Nat’l Patent Planning Comm’n, The American\\nPatent System, June 18, 1943, H.R. Doc. 78-239, at 10\\n(“One of the greatest technical weaknesses of the patent\\nsystem is the lack of a definitive yardstick as to what is\\ninvention.”); id. at 5 (“The most serious weakness in the\\npresent patent system is the lack of a uniform test or stand-\\nard for determining whether the particular contribution of\\nan inventor merits the award of the patent grant. . . . The\\ndifficulty in applying this statute arises out of the presence\\nof the words ‘invented’ and ‘discovered.’ Novelty alone is\\nnot sufficient, nor is utility, nor is the final accomplish-\\nment. There must also be present some mysterious ingre-\\ndient connoted in the term ‘invented.’”).\\n But although Congress so amended the Act decades\\nago, we continue to apply the invention requirement today\\nunder a new name—the “inventive concept” requirement.\\nEarly cases applying § 101 after the 1952 amendment,\\nsuch as Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), drew heavily\\nfrom cases decided under the “invention” requirement.\\nCompare Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333\\nU.S. 127, 131 (1948) (concluding that the “aggregation of\\n\\n4 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nspecies” at issue “fell short of invention” because “[i]f there\\nis to be invention from such a discovery, it must come from\\nthe application of the law of nature to a new and useful\\nend”), with Flook, 437 U.S. at 591 (“Mackay Radio and\\nFunk Bros. point to the proper analysis for this case.”).\\nFlook therefore forged a two-part test, with respect to\\n§ 101, that is seemingly indistinguishable from the one\\nthat had been applied in many “invention” cases over\\ntwenty-five years earlier. First, Flook treated the natural\\nlaw as part of “the prior art.” Flook, 437 U.S. at 594. Sec-\\nond, Flook asked whether what remained—apart from the\\nprior art, i.e. the natural law—constituted “invention.” Id.\\n(“Respondent’s process is unpatentable under § 101, not be-\\ncause it contains a mathematical algorithm as one compo-\\nnent, but because once that algorithm is assumed to be\\nwithin the prior art, the application, considered as a whole,\\ncontains no patentable invention.”); see also Diamond v.\\nDiehr, 450 U.S. 175, 204 (1981) (“Under this procedure, the\\nalgorithm is treated for § 101 purposes as though it were a\\nfamiliar part of the prior art; the claim is then examined to\\ndetermine whether it discloses ‘some other inventive con-\\ncept.’”) (quoting Flook, 437 U.S. at 594)). Against this back-\\ndrop, the search for an inventive concept—now enshrined\\nin the § 101 inquiry via Mayo—calls back to the invention\\nrequirement that Congress quite deliberately abrogated\\nthrough the Patent Act of 1952.\\n In fact, the disagreement here centers on whether the\\nadditional limitations in the claims, either individually or\\nas an ordered combination, satisfy the inventive concept\\nrequirement. Compare Lourie Op. at 4 (“Under Supreme\\nCourt precedent, I do not believe that specific yet purely\\nconventional detection steps impart eligibility to a claim\\nthat otherwise only sets forth what the Court has held is a\\nnatural law.” (internal quotations omitted)), with Moore\\nOp. at 20 (“These [additional] steps are not set out at the\\n‘high level of generality’ that concerned the Court in Mayo,\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 5\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\nand they specifically confine their reach to a specific appli-\\ncation of the relationship between anti-MuSK antibodies\\nand MG.”). Had the Supreme Court not disregarded Con-\\ngress’s wishes for a second time, perhaps the outcome in\\nthis case would be different. See Lourie Op. at 2 (“If I could\\nwrite on a clean slate, . . . I would not exclude uses or de-\\ntection of natural laws.”). Indeed, claims directed to uses\\nof natural laws rather than the natural laws themselves\\nwould be eligible under § 101 as written. Because the Su-\\npreme Court judicially revived the invention requirement\\nand continues to apply it despite express abrogation, I dis-\\nsent to encourage Congress to clarify that there should be\\nno such requirement read into § 101; to clarify that con-\\ncepts of novelty and “invention” are to be assessed via ap-\\nplication of other provisions of the Patent Act Congress\\ndesigned for that purpose.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4413809/\", \"author_raw\": \"O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"PROST"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"NEWMAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"LOURIE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":"DYK; MOORE; O'MALLEY; REYNA; WALLACH; TARANTO; CHEN; HUGHES; STOLL"},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"PROST\": \", Chief\", \"NEWMAN\": \", Circuit\", \"LOURIE\": \", Circuit\", \"DYK\": \", Circuit\", \"MOORE\": \", Circuit\", \"O'MALLEY\": \", Circuit\", \"REYNA\": \", Circuit\", \"WALLACH\": \", Circuit\", \"TARANTO\": \", Circuit\", \"CHEN\": \", Circuit\", \"HUGHES\": \", Circuit\", \"STOLL\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":9,"string":"9"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":4,"string":"4"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":4,"string":"4"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4636556/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Oxford University Innovation LTD., Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Wissenschaften E v. Plaintiffs-Appellants v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, Dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, Mayo Clinic, Defendants-Appellees\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-03\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD\n UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCK-\n GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER\n WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\n\n v.\n\n MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA\nMAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC,\n Defendants-Appellees\n ______________________\n\n 2017-2508\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\nDistrict of Massachusetts in No. 1:15-cv-40075-IT, Judge\nIndira Talwani.\n ______________________\n\n ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC\n ______________________\n\n ADAM GAHTAN, Fenwick & West, New York, NY, filed a\npetition for rehearing en banc for plaintiffs-appellants.\nAlso represented by ERIC M. MAJCHRZAK, VANESSA PARK-\nTHOMPSON; ANDREW JOSEPH KABAT, EMMETT J. MCMAHON,\nRobins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN; DIMITRIOS T.\nDRIVAS, White & Case LLP, New York, NY.\n\n JONATHAN ELLIOT SINGER, Fish & Richardson, PC, San\n\n2 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\n SERVICES\n\n\nDiego, CA, filed a response to the petition for defendants-\nappellees. Also represented by JOHN CAMERON ADKISSON,\nELIZABETH M. FLANAGAN, PHILLIP GOTER, DEANNA JEAN\nREICHEL, Minneapolis, MN.\n\n MELISSA A. BRAND, Biotechnology Innovation Organi-\nzation, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Biotechnology In-\nnovation Organization, CropLife International,\nPharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America,\nWisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. Also represented\nby HANSJORG SAUER. Amicus curiae Biotechnology Inno-\nvation Organization also represented by BRIAN PAUL\nBARRETT, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN. Amicus\ncuriae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of\nAmerica also represented by DAVID EVAN KORN, Pharma-\nceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of Amer-\nica, Washington, DC.\n\n MATTHEW JAMES DOWD, Dowd Scheffel PLLC, Wash-\nington, DC, for amici curiae Richard A. Epstein, Christo-\npher Michael Holman, Adam Mossoff, Kristen J. Osenga,\nMichael Risch, Ted M. Sichelman, Brenda M. Simon. Also\nrepresented by ROBERT JAMES SCHEFFEL.\n\n SHERRY M. KNOWLES, Knowles Intellectual Property\nStrategies, LLC, Atlanta, GA, for amici curiae Freenome\nHoldings Inc., Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Also repre-\nsented by MEREDITH MARTIN ADDY, AddyHart P.C., At-\nlanta, GA.\n ______________________\n\nBefore PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE,\n O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES,\n and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\n LOURIE, Circuit Judge, with whom REYNA and CHEN,\n Circuit Judges, join, concurs in the denial of the petition\n for rehearing en banc.\n\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 3\nSERVICES\n\n\n HUGHES, Circuit Judge, with whom PROST, Chief\n Judge, and TARANTO, Circuit Judge, join, concurs in the\n denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.\n DYK, Circuit Judge, with whom HUGHES, Circuit\nJudge, joins, and with whom CHEN, Circuit Judge, joins as\n to Parts IV, V, and VI, concurs in the denial of the peti-\n tion for rehearing en banc.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Oxford University Innovation LTD., Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Wissenschaften E v. Plaintiffs-Appellants v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, Dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, Mayo Clinic, Defendants-Appellees\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-03\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD\\n UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCK-\\n GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER\\n WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA\\nMAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC,\\n Defendants-Appellees\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2508\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Massachusetts in No. 1:15-cv-40075-IT, Judge\\nIndira Talwani.\\n ______________________\\n\\n ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC\\n ______________________\\n\\n ADAM GAHTAN, Fenwick & West, New York, NY, filed a\\npetition for rehearing en banc for plaintiffs-appellants.\\nAlso represented by ERIC M. MAJCHRZAK, VANESSA PARK-\\nTHOMPSON; ANDREW JOSEPH KABAT, EMMETT J. MCMAHON,\\nRobins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN; DIMITRIOS T.\\nDRIVAS, White & Case LLP, New York, NY.\\n\\n JONATHAN ELLIOT SINGER, Fish & Richardson, PC, San\\n\\n2 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE\\n SERVICES\\n\\n\\nDiego, CA, filed a response to the petition for defendants-\\nappellees. Also represented by JOHN CAMERON ADKISSON,\\nELIZABETH M. FLANAGAN, PHILLIP GOTER, DEANNA JEAN\\nREICHEL, Minneapolis, MN.\\n\\n MELISSA A. BRAND, Biotechnology Innovation Organi-\\nzation, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Biotechnology In-\\nnovation Organization, CropLife International,\\nPharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America,\\nWisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. Also represented\\nby HANSJORG SAUER. Amicus curiae Biotechnology Inno-\\nvation Organization also represented by BRIAN PAUL\\nBARRETT, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN. Amicus\\ncuriae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of\\nAmerica also represented by DAVID EVAN KORN, Pharma-\\nceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of Amer-\\nica, Washington, DC.\\n\\n MATTHEW JAMES DOWD, Dowd Scheffel PLLC, Wash-\\nington, DC, for amici curiae Richard A. Epstein, Christo-\\npher Michael Holman, Adam Mossoff, Kristen J. Osenga,\\nMichael Risch, Ted M. Sichelman, Brenda M. Simon. Also\\nrepresented by ROBERT JAMES SCHEFFEL.\\n\\n SHERRY M. KNOWLES, Knowles Intellectual Property\\nStrategies, LLC, Atlanta, GA, for amici curiae Freenome\\nHoldings Inc., Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Also repre-\\nsented by MEREDITH MARTIN ADDY, AddyHart P.C., At-\\nlanta, GA.\\n ______________________\\n\\nBefore PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE,\\n O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES,\\n and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\\n LOURIE, Circuit Judge, with whom REYNA and CHEN,\\n Circuit Judges, join, concurs in the denial of the petition\\n for rehearing en banc.\\n\\nATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE 3\\nSERVICES\\n\\n\\n HUGHES, Circuit Judge, with whom PROST, Chief\\n Judge, and TARANTO, Circuit Judge, join, concurs in the\\n denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.\\n DYK, Circuit Judge, with whom HUGHES, Circuit\\nJudge, joins, and with whom CHEN, Circuit Judge, joins as\\n to Parts IV, V, and VI, concurs in the denial of the peti-\\n tion for rehearing en banc.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3485,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4637120,"string":"4,637,120"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. 3M COMPANY, GTA-NHT, Inc., Dba Northstar Chemical, Defendants-Appellees"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Westech Aerosol Corporation v. 3m Company"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"2018-1699"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Lourie, Mayer, Reyna\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"REYNA, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n3M COMPANY, GTA-NHT, INC., DBA NORTHSTAR\\n CHEMICAL,\\n Defendants-Appellees\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1699\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nWestern District of Washington in No. 3:17-cv-05067-RBL,\\nJudge Ronald B. Leighton.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 5, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n MARK P. WALTERS, Lowe Graham Jones PLLC, Seattle,\\nWA, argued for plaintiff-appellant.\\n\\n PRATIK A. SHAH, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld\\nLLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees.\\nAlso represented by Z.W. JULIUS CHEN, RACHEL J. ELSBY;\\nMICHAEL P. KAHN, MICHAEL NASSER PETEGORSKY, New\\nYork, NY.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before LOURIE, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f2 WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nREYNA, Circuit Judge.\\n Westech Aerosol Corporation appeals the decision of\\nthe United States District Court for the Western District of\\nWashington granting 3M Company and GTA-NHT, Inc.’s\\nmotion to dismiss for improper venue. 3M Company and\\nGTA-NHT, Inc. subsequently moved for attorneys’ fees and\\ndouble costs, arguing Westech Aerosol Corporation filed a\\nfrivolous appeal. Because the district court did not err in\\ngranting the motion to dismiss, we affirm. We also deny\\nthe motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.\\n BACKGROUND\\n On January 27, 2017, Appellant Westech Aerosol Cor-\\nporation (“Westech”) filed suit in the Western District of\\nWashington, alleging that Appellees 3M Company (“3M\\nCo.”) and GTA-NHT, Inc., d/b/a Northstar Chemical\\n(“Northstar”) (collectively, “3M Co.”) infringed U.S. Patent\\nNo. 7,705,056 (“the ’056 patent”). 3M moved to dismiss for\\nfailure to state a claim, which prompted Westech to file an\\namended complaint. 3M again moved to dismiss for failure\\nto state a claim. While 3M’s second motion to dismiss was\\npending, the Supreme Court issued its decision in TC\\nHeartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S.\\nCt. 1514 (2017), holding that for purposes of the patent\\nvenue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), a corporation “resides”\\nonly in its state of incorporation. Id. at 1517.\\n In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in TC Heartland,\\n3M moved on May 25, 2017, to amend its pending motion\\nto dismiss to include an argument that venue was improper\\nin the Western District of Washington. The district court\\ngranted the motion to amend, and 3M filed an amended\\nmotion to dismiss on June 21, 2017, arguing that neither\\n3M nor Northstar had a regular and established place of\\nbusiness in the judicial district.\\n Westech responded to the amended motion to dismiss\\nby conceding “that its original complaint does not assert\\n\\fWESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY 3\\n\\n\\n\\nfacts that support venue in this Court under the guidance\\nof TC Heartland.” J.A. 453. Accordingly, in its response,\\nWestech sought leave to amend its complaint “to assert\\nfacts sufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).” Id. Westech\\nalso argued in its response, inter alia, that the presence of\\nsales representatives and 3M’s sales in Washington sup-\\nported venue in the district and that 3M had a “principal\\nplace of business” and other business locations at various\\naddresses in Washington. J.A. 453–54.\\n 3M filed a reply supported by a declaration stating that\\nat the time of the original complaint, 3M did not own, lease,\\nuse, or maintain property at any of the locations identified\\nin Westech’s response. The declaration, signed by a senior\\nmanager in 3M’s Real Estate Department, further stated\\nthat 3M did not currently occupy any of the locations iden-\\ntified by Westech. Westech moved to strike 3M’s reply and\\naccompanying declaration because they discussed new in-\\nformation raised for the first time in 3M’s reply.\\n The district court denied 3M’s amended motion to dis-\\nmiss without prejudice. In addressing the venue issue, the\\ncourt agreed with 3M that a sales presence in the judicial\\ndistrict did not, by itself, satisfy the patent venue statute.\\nThe court, however, was persuaded that Westech could\\namend its complaint to allege proper venue, and therefore\\ngranted Westech leave to amend its complaint with a warn-\\ning to do so “consistent with its Rule 11 obligations.” J.A.\\n519.\\n Westech filed its second amended complaint on Sep-\\ntember 6, 2017. Instead of pleading facts to support proper\\nvenue, Westech parroted § 1400(b):\\n Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to\\n 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Defendants have com-\\n mitted acts of infringement in this judicial district\\n and 3M has one or more regular and established\\n places of business in this judicial district. Further-\\n more, on information and belief, Defendants\\n\\f4 WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n maintain contractual relationships with distribu-\\n tors of the infringing products who are located in\\n this judicial district, Defendants have sales repre-\\n sentatives located in this judicial district, Defend-\\n ants represent that they sell products in this\\n judicial district, and Defendants earn substantial\\n sales revenue from sales of the infringing products\\n in this judicial district.\\nJ.A. 521. Westech admits that it did not allege facts to sup-\\nport an allegation that Northstar had a regular and estab-\\nlished place of business in the judicial district. Appellant’s\\nBr. 20.\\n On September 14, 2017, 3M once again moved to dis-\\nmiss for improper venue. A few days later, this court is-\\nsued its decision in In re Cray Inc., which outlined the\\nrequirements for proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).\\n871 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that § 1400(b)\\nrequires a defendant to have a physical place in the district\\nthat serves as a regular and established place of business).\\nRelying in part on Cray, the district court agreed that\\nvenue was improper, stating that “[t]here is no factual ba-\\nsis upon which the Court can conclude that 3M has ‘a reg-\\nular and established’ place of business in this District, and\\ncertainly no basis for concluding that Northstar does.”\\nJ.A. 3. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to dis-\\nmiss and dismissed the case without prejudice. J.A. 3–4.\\nWestech timely appealed.\\n After Westech filed its opening brief on appeal, 3M\\nmoved for sanctions, requesting attorneys’ fees and double\\ncosts. 3M contends that Westech’s appeal is frivolous as\\nfiled because the district court’s judgment is plainly correct\\nin light of the fact that Westech failed to plead any facts\\nsupporting venue. 3M also asserts that Westech’s appeal\\nis frivolous as argued because Westech disregards the hold-\\nings in Cray and In re ZTE (USA) Inc., 890 F.3d 1008, 1013\\n(Fed. Cir. 2018).\\n\\fWESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY 5\\n\\n\\n\\n We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1295(a)(1).\\n DISCUSSION\\n Westech frames its appeal as a question of the proper\\npleading standards for venue and contends that it pleaded\\nfacts sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. 3M seeks\\nsanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for\\nattorneys’ fees and double costs for having to defend\\nWestech’s “frivolous” appeal. We address each issue in\\nturn.\\n Venue\\n We review de novo the question of proper venue under\\n28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Accord Immigrant Assistance Project\\nof L.A. Cty. Fed’n of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. I.N.S., 306 F.3d\\n842, 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (referencing the standard of review\\nfor venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)); Pierce v. Shorty\\nSmall’s of Branson Inc., 137 F.3d 1190, 1191 (10th Cir.\\n1998) (“The district court’s determination of where the ac-\\ntion may be brought involves an interpretation of the venue\\nstatute and is, therefore, a question of law subject to de\\nnovo review.”).\\n Two principles of patent venue law underlie our deci-\\nsion in this case. First, we held in ZTE that the plaintiff\\nhas the burden of establishing proper venue under 28\\nU.S.C. § 1400(b). 890 F.3d at 1013. Second, we held in\\nCray that venue under the patent statute is proper when\\nthe facts show that the defendant has a regular and estab-\\nlished place of business physically located within the judi-\\ncial district. 871 F.3d at 1360, 1364–67. Westech’s second\\namended complaint fails to meet these standards.\\n Westech failed to plead any facts showing 3M had a\\nregular and established place of business physically located\\nin the Western District of Washington. Westech repre-\\nsented to the district court that it would allege facts in its\\nsecond amended complaint showing that 3M was subject to\\n\\f6 WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nvenue in the judicial district, but then failed to do so, de-\\nspite the district court’s Rule 11 warning. Given an oppor-\\ntunity to amend its complaint to support its venue\\nallegations, Westech chose not to allege any facts in its sub-\\nsequent second amended complaint to support proper\\nvenue. 1\\n Westech, in effect, claims that in lieu of pleading facts,\\nit is sufficient to parrot the language of § 1400(b). This is\\nincorrect. Simply stating that 3M has a regular and estab-\\nlished place of business within the judicial district, without\\nmore, amounts to a mere legal conclusion that the court is\\nnot bound to accept as true. See McZeal v. Sprint Nextel\\nCorp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[C]onclusory\\nallegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual\\nconclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.”)\\n(quoting Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378\\n(5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted)).\\nWestech’s recitation of § 1400(b) is insufficient to survive a\\nmotion to dismiss for improper venue.\\n A presumption that facts pleaded in the complaint are\\ntrue does not supplant a plaintiff’s burden to plead specific\\nfacts showing that the defendant has a regular and estab-\\nlished place of business physically located in the judicial\\ndistrict. See Cray, 871 F.3d at 1360, 1364–67. Here,\\nWestech wholly failed to allege facts showing 3M had a reg-\\nular and established place of business in the Western Dis-\\ntrict of Washington.\\n We have considered Westech’s remaining arguments\\nand find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we hold that the\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 While Westech continued to allege facts regarding\\nthe presence of sales representatives within the judicial\\ndistrict, the district court had already ruled that having a\\nsales presence alone does not establish venue under\\n§ 1400(b).\\n\\fWESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY 7\\n\\n\\n\\ndistrict court did not err in granting 3M’s motion to dis-\\nmiss.\\n Motion for Sanctions\\n The merits of the appeal, and a party’s conduct during\\nappeal, drive whether attorneys’ fees and costs should be\\nawarded as sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Pro-\\ncedure 38. Walker v. Health Int’l Corp., 845 F.3d 1148,\\n1154 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Rule 38 provides that “[i]f a court of\\nappeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, af-\\nter a separately filed motion or notice from the court and\\nreasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages\\nand single or double costs to the appellee.” Thus, this court\\nhas discretion over whether to impose sanctions. Walker,\\n845 F.3d at 1157 (stating “we exercise our discretion to im-\\npose sanctions”).\\n An appeal can be frivolous in two ways: as filed and as\\nargued. An appeal is frivolous as filed when “the judgment\\nby the tribunal below was so plainly correct and the legal\\nauthority contrary to appellant’s position so clear that\\nthere really is no appealable issue.” State Indus., Inc. v.\\nMor–Flo Indus., Inc., 948 F.2d 1573, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991)\\n(quoting Finch v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 926 F.2d 1574,\\n1579–80 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). An appeal is frivolous as argued\\nwhen “the post-filing conduct of the litigant in arguing the\\nappeal” is frivolous. Id. (quoting Romala Corp. v. United\\nStates, 927 F.2d 1219, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). For example,\\nan appeal may be frivolous as argued when the appellant\\n“distort[s] the record, by disregarding or misrepresenting\\nthe clear authority against its position, and by attempting\\nto draw illogical deductions from the facts and the law.” Id.\\nat 1579.\\n We conclude that Westech’s appeal, while lacking\\nmerit, is not frivolous as filed. It was highly imprudent of\\nWestech to initiate an appeal in light of the district court’s\\ndismissal without prejudice and our holding in Cray, which\\nwas cited by the district court. As discussed above,\\n\\f8 WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nWestech alleged no facts in its second amended complaint\\nto show venue was proper in the Western District of Wash-\\nington despite the district court’s admonition that Westech\\namend its complaint consistent with its Rule 11 obliga-\\ntions. But at the time of filing the appeal, the question of\\nwho had the burden to show the defendant had a regular\\nand established place of business in the judicial district\\nwas not settled; our opinion in ZTE explicitly detailing the\\nburden of the plaintiff to establish venue had not issued.\\n On the other hand, Westech’s appeal is frivolous as ar-\\ngued. Westech disregards controlling law, here Cray and\\nZTE, despite being aware of both cases during pendency of\\nthis appeal. Westech cited ZTE in its opening brief and the\\ndistrict court explicitly discussed Cray in its judgment dis-\\nposing of the case. In fact, ZTE discusses our holding in\\nCray. ZTE, 890 F.3d at 1014–15. Yet, Westech failed to\\ncite Cray in its opening brief and asserts that Cray is not\\nrelevant to this appeal. Oral Arg. at 1:55–3:30 (Feb. 5,\\n2019), oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=\\n2018-1699.mp3. As discussed above, these cases are rele-\\nvant and clearly contrary to Westech’s position.\\n We do not however, believe such misconduct warrants\\nsanctions under these circumstances. Westech’s behavior\\non appeal borders on sanctionable, but we cannot fault\\nWestech for pursuing an appeal when the question of who\\nshoulders the burden of establishing proper venue under\\n§ 1400(b) had yet to be answered. It is due to the unique\\nprocedural posture here and the sequence of events in the\\nevolution of this court’s patent venue law that we deny\\n3M’s motion for sanctions.\\n CONCLUSION\\n For the foregoing reasons, we hold the district court did\\nnot err in granting the motion to dismiss for improper\\nvenue. We also deny 3M’s motion for sanctions.\\n AFFIRMED\\n\\fWESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY 9\\n\\n\\n\\n COSTS\\n Costs awarded to 3M and Northstar consistent with\\nFederal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4414373/\", \"author_raw\": \"REYNA, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"LOURIE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MAYER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"REYNA"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637120/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. 3M COMPANY, GTA-NHT, Inc., Dba Northstar Chemical, Defendants-Appellees\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION,\n Plaintiff-Appellant\n\n v.\n\n3M COMPANY, GTA-NHT, INC., DBA NORTHSTAR\n CHEMICAL,\n Defendants-Appellees\n ______________________\n\n 2018-1699\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\nWestern District of Washington in No. 3:17-cv-05067-RBL,\nJudge Ronald B. Leighton.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: July 5, 2019\n ______________________\n\n MARK P. WALTERS, Lowe Graham Jones PLLC, Seattle,\nWA, argued for plaintiff-appellant.\n\n PRATIK A. SHAH, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld\nLLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees.\nAlso represented by Z.W. JULIUS CHEN, RACHEL J. ELSBY;\nMICHAEL P. KAHN, MICHAEL NASSER PETEGORSKY, New\nYork, NY.\n ______________________\n\n Before LOURIE, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.\n\f2 WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY\n\n\n\n\nREYNA, Circuit Judge.\n Westech Aerosol Corporation appeals the decision of\nthe United States District Court for the Western District of\nWashington granting 3M Company and GTA-NHT, Inc.’s\nmotion to dismiss for improper venue. 3M Company and\nGTA-NHT, Inc. subsequently moved for attorneys’ fees and\ndouble costs, arguing Westech Aerosol Corporation filed a\nfrivolous appeal. Because the district court did not err in\ngranting the motion to dismiss, we affirm. We also deny\nthe motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.\n BACKGROUND\n On January 27, 2017, Appellant Westech Aerosol Cor-\nporation (“Westech”) filed suit in the Western District of\nWashington, alleging that Appellees 3M Company (“3M\nCo.”) and GTA-NHT, Inc., d/b/a Northstar Chemical\n(“Northstar”) (collectively, “3M Co.”) infringed U.S. Patent\nNo. 7,705,056 (“the ’056 patent”). 3M moved to dismiss for\nfailure to state a claim, which prompted Westech to file an\namended complaint. 3M again moved to dismiss for failure\nto state a claim. While 3M’s second motion to dismiss was\npending, the Supreme Court issued its decision in TC\nHeartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S.\nCt. 1514 (2017), holding that for purposes of the patent\nvenue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), a corporation “resides”\nonly in its state of incorporation. Id. at 1517.\n In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in TC Heartland,\n3M moved on May 25, 2017, to amend its pending motion\nto dismiss to include an argument that venue was improper\nin the Western District of Washington. The district court\ngranted the motion to amend, and 3M filed an amended\nmotion to dismiss on June 21, 2017, arguing that neither\n3M nor Northstar had a regular and established place of\nbusiness in the judicial district.\n Westech responded to the amended motion to dismiss\nby conceding “that its original complaint does not assert\n\fWESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY 3\n\n\n\nfacts that support venue in this Court under the guidance\nof TC Heartland.” J.A. 453. Accordingly, in its response,\nWestech sought leave to amend its complaint “to assert\nfacts sufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).” Id. Westech\nalso argued in its response, inter alia, that the presence of\nsales representatives and 3M’s sales in Washington sup-\nported venue in the district and that 3M had a “principal\nplace of business” and other business locations at various\naddresses in Washington. J.A. 453–54.\n 3M filed a reply supported by a declaration stating that\nat the time of the original complaint, 3M did not own, lease,\nuse, or maintain property at any of the locations identified\nin Westech’s response. The declaration, signed by a senior\nmanager in 3M’s Real Estate Department, further stated\nthat 3M did not currently occupy any of the locations iden-\ntified by Westech. Westech moved to strike 3M’s reply and\naccompanying declaration because they discussed new in-\nformation raised for the first time in 3M’s reply.\n The district court denied 3M’s amended motion to dis-\nmiss without prejudice. In addressing the venue issue, the\ncourt agreed with 3M that a sales presence in the judicial\ndistrict did not, by itself, satisfy the patent venue statute.\nThe court, however, was persuaded that Westech could\namend its complaint to allege proper venue, and therefore\ngranted Westech leave to amend its complaint with a warn-\ning to do so “consistent with its Rule 11 obligations.” J.A.\n519.\n Westech filed its second amended complaint on Sep-\ntember 6, 2017. Instead of pleading facts to support proper\nvenue, Westech parroted § 1400(b):\n Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to\n 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Defendants have com-\n mitted acts of infringement in this judicial district\n and 3M has one or more regular and established\n places of business in this judicial district. Further-\n more, on information and belief, Defendants\n\f4 WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY\n\n\n\n\n maintain contractual relationships with distribu-\n tors of the infringing products who are located in\n this judicial district, Defendants have sales repre-\n sentatives located in this judicial district, Defend-\n ants represent that they sell products in this\n judicial district, and Defendants earn substantial\n sales revenue from sales of the infringing products\n in this judicial district.\nJ.A. 521. Westech admits that it did not allege facts to sup-\nport an allegation that Northstar had a regular and estab-\nlished place of business in the judicial district. Appellant’s\nBr. 20.\n On September 14, 2017, 3M once again moved to dis-\nmiss for improper venue. A few days later, this court is-\nsued its decision in In re Cray Inc., which outlined the\nrequirements for proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).\n871 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that § 1400(b)\nrequires a defendant to have a physical place in the district\nthat serves as a regular and established place of business).\nRelying in part on Cray, the district court agreed that\nvenue was improper, stating that “[t]here is no factual ba-\nsis upon which the Court can conclude that 3M has ‘a reg-\nular and established’ place of business in this District, and\ncertainly no basis for concluding that Northstar does.”\nJ.A. 3. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to dis-\nmiss and dismissed the case without prejudice. J.A. 3–4.\nWestech timely appealed.\n After Westech filed its opening brief on appeal, 3M\nmoved for sanctions, requesting attorneys’ fees and double\ncosts. 3M contends that Westech’s appeal is frivolous as\nfiled because the district court’s judgment is plainly correct\nin light of the fact that Westech failed to plead any facts\nsupporting venue. 3M also asserts that Westech’s appeal\nis frivolous as argued because Westech disregards the hold-\nings in Cray and In re ZTE (USA) Inc., 890 F.3d 1008, 1013\n(Fed. Cir. 2018).\n\fWESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY 5\n\n\n\n We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\n§ 1295(a)(1).\n DISCUSSION\n Westech frames its appeal as a question of the proper\npleading standards for venue and contends that it pleaded\nfacts sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. 3M seeks\nsanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for\nattorneys’ fees and double costs for having to defend\nWestech’s “frivolous” appeal. We address each issue in\nturn.\n Venue\n We review de novo the question of proper venue under\n28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Accord Immigrant Assistance Project\nof L.A. Cty. Fed’n of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. I.N.S., 306 F.3d\n842, 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (referencing the standard of review\nfor venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)); Pierce v. Shorty\nSmall’s of Branson Inc., 137 F.3d 1190, 1191 (10th Cir.\n1998) (“The district court’s determination of where the ac-\ntion may be brought involves an interpretation of the venue\nstatute and is, therefore, a question of law subject to de\nnovo review.”).\n Two principles of patent venue law underlie our deci-\nsion in this case. First, we held in ZTE that the plaintiff\nhas the burden of establishing proper venue under 28\nU.S.C. § 1400(b). 890 F.3d at 1013. Second, we held in\nCray that venue under the patent statute is proper when\nthe facts show that the defendant has a regular and estab-\nlished place of business physically located within the judi-\ncial district. 871 F.3d at 1360, 1364–67. Westech’s second\namended complaint fails to meet these standards.\n Westech failed to plead any facts showing 3M had a\nregular and established place of business physically located\nin the Western District of Washington. Westech repre-\nsented to the district court that it would allege facts in its\nsecond amended complaint showing that 3M was subject to\n\f6 WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY\n\n\n\n\nvenue in the judicial district, but then failed to do so, de-\nspite the district court’s Rule 11 warning. Given an oppor-\ntunity to amend its complaint to support its venue\nallegations, Westech chose not to allege any facts in its sub-\nsequent second amended complaint to support proper\nvenue. 1\n Westech, in effect, claims that in lieu of pleading facts,\nit is sufficient to parrot the language of § 1400(b). This is\nincorrect. Simply stating that 3M has a regular and estab-\nlished place of business within the judicial district, without\nmore, amounts to a mere legal conclusion that the court is\nnot bound to accept as true. See McZeal v. Sprint Nextel\nCorp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[C]onclusory\nallegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual\nconclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.”)\n(quoting Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378\n(5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted)).\nWestech’s recitation of § 1400(b) is insufficient to survive a\nmotion to dismiss for improper venue.\n A presumption that facts pleaded in the complaint are\ntrue does not supplant a plaintiff’s burden to plead specific\nfacts showing that the defendant has a regular and estab-\nlished place of business physically located in the judicial\ndistrict. See Cray, 871 F.3d at 1360, 1364–67. Here,\nWestech wholly failed to allege facts showing 3M had a reg-\nular and established place of business in the Western Dis-\ntrict of Washington.\n We have considered Westech’s remaining arguments\nand find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we hold that the\n\n\n\n 1 While Westech continued to allege facts regarding\nthe presence of sales representatives within the judicial\ndistrict, the district court had already ruled that having a\nsales presence alone does not establish venue under\n§ 1400(b).\n\fWESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY 7\n\n\n\ndistrict court did not err in granting 3M’s motion to dis-\nmiss.\n Motion for Sanctions\n The merits of the appeal, and a party’s conduct during\nappeal, drive whether attorneys’ fees and costs should be\nawarded as sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Pro-\ncedure 38. Walker v. Health Int’l Corp., 845 F.3d 1148,\n1154 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Rule 38 provides that “[i]f a court of\nappeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, af-\nter a separately filed motion or notice from the court and\nreasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages\nand single or double costs to the appellee.” Thus, this court\nhas discretion over whether to impose sanctions. Walker,\n845 F.3d at 1157 (stating “we exercise our discretion to im-\npose sanctions”).\n An appeal can be frivolous in two ways: as filed and as\nargued. An appeal is frivolous as filed when “the judgment\nby the tribunal below was so plainly correct and the legal\nauthority contrary to appellant’s position so clear that\nthere really is no appealable issue.” State Indus., Inc. v.\nMor–Flo Indus., Inc., 948 F.2d 1573, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991)\n(quoting Finch v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 926 F.2d 1574,\n1579–80 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). An appeal is frivolous as argued\nwhen “the post-filing conduct of the litigant in arguing the\nappeal” is frivolous. Id. (quoting Romala Corp. v. United\nStates, 927 F.2d 1219, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). For example,\nan appeal may be frivolous as argued when the appellant\n“distort[s] the record, by disregarding or misrepresenting\nthe clear authority against its position, and by attempting\nto draw illogical deductions from the facts and the law.” Id.\nat 1579.\n We conclude that Westech’s appeal, while lacking\nmerit, is not frivolous as filed. It was highly imprudent of\nWestech to initiate an appeal in light of the district court’s\ndismissal without prejudice and our holding in Cray, which\nwas cited by the district court. As discussed above,\n\f8 WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY\n\n\n\n\nWestech alleged no facts in its second amended complaint\nto show venue was proper in the Western District of Wash-\nington despite the district court’s admonition that Westech\namend its complaint consistent with its Rule 11 obliga-\ntions. But at the time of filing the appeal, the question of\nwho had the burden to show the defendant had a regular\nand established place of business in the judicial district\nwas not settled; our opinion in ZTE explicitly detailing the\nburden of the plaintiff to establish venue had not issued.\n On the other hand, Westech’s appeal is frivolous as ar-\ngued. Westech disregards controlling law, here Cray and\nZTE, despite being aware of both cases during pendency of\nthis appeal. Westech cited ZTE in its opening brief and the\ndistrict court explicitly discussed Cray in its judgment dis-\nposing of the case. In fact, ZTE discusses our holding in\nCray. ZTE, 890 F.3d at 1014–15. Yet, Westech failed to\ncite Cray in its opening brief and asserts that Cray is not\nrelevant to this appeal. Oral Arg. at 1:55–3:30 (Feb. 5,\n2019), oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=\n2018-1699.mp3. As discussed above, these cases are rele-\nvant and clearly contrary to Westech’s position.\n We do not however, believe such misconduct warrants\nsanctions under these circumstances. Westech’s behavior\non appeal borders on sanctionable, but we cannot fault\nWestech for pursuing an appeal when the question of who\nshoulders the burden of establishing proper venue under\n§ 1400(b) had yet to be answered. It is due to the unique\nprocedural posture here and the sequence of events in the\nevolution of this court’s patent venue law that we deny\n3M’s motion for sanctions.\n CONCLUSION\n For the foregoing reasons, we hold the district court did\nnot err in granting the motion to dismiss for improper\nvenue. We also deny 3M’s motion for sanctions.\n AFFIRMED\n\fWESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY 9\n\n\n\n COSTS\n Costs awarded to 3M and Northstar consistent with\nFederal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. 3M COMPANY, GTA-NHT, Inc., Dba Northstar Chemical, Defendants-Appellees\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n3M COMPANY, GTA-NHT, INC., DBA NORTHSTAR\\n CHEMICAL,\\n Defendants-Appellees\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1699\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nWestern District of Washington in No. 3:17-cv-05067-RBL,\\nJudge Ronald B. Leighton.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 5, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n MARK P. WALTERS, Lowe Graham Jones PLLC, Seattle,\\nWA, argued for plaintiff-appellant.\\n\\n PRATIK A. SHAH, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld\\nLLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees.\\nAlso represented by Z.W. JULIUS CHEN, RACHEL J. ELSBY;\\nMICHAEL P. KAHN, MICHAEL NASSER PETEGORSKY, New\\nYork, NY.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before LOURIE, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f2 WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nREYNA, Circuit Judge.\\n Westech Aerosol Corporation appeals the decision of\\nthe United States District Court for the Western District of\\nWashington granting 3M Company and GTA-NHT, Inc.’s\\nmotion to dismiss for improper venue. 3M Company and\\nGTA-NHT, Inc. subsequently moved for attorneys’ fees and\\ndouble costs, arguing Westech Aerosol Corporation filed a\\nfrivolous appeal. Because the district court did not err in\\ngranting the motion to dismiss, we affirm. We also deny\\nthe motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.\\n BACKGROUND\\n On January 27, 2017, Appellant Westech Aerosol Cor-\\nporation (“Westech”) filed suit in the Western District of\\nWashington, alleging that Appellees 3M Company (“3M\\nCo.”) and GTA-NHT, Inc., d/b/a Northstar Chemical\\n(“Northstar”) (collectively, “3M Co.”) infringed U.S. Patent\\nNo. 7,705,056 (“the ’056 patent”). 3M moved to dismiss for\\nfailure to state a claim, which prompted Westech to file an\\namended complaint. 3M again moved to dismiss for failure\\nto state a claim. While 3M’s second motion to dismiss was\\npending, the Supreme Court issued its decision in TC\\nHeartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S.\\nCt. 1514 (2017), holding that for purposes of the patent\\nvenue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), a corporation “resides”\\nonly in its state of incorporation. Id. at 1517.\\n In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in TC Heartland,\\n3M moved on May 25, 2017, to amend its pending motion\\nto dismiss to include an argument that venue was improper\\nin the Western District of Washington. The district court\\ngranted the motion to amend, and 3M filed an amended\\nmotion to dismiss on June 21, 2017, arguing that neither\\n3M nor Northstar had a regular and established place of\\nbusiness in the judicial district.\\n Westech responded to the amended motion to dismiss\\nby conceding “that its original complaint does not assert\\n\\fWESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY 3\\n\\n\\n\\nfacts that support venue in this Court under the guidance\\nof TC Heartland.” J.A. 453. Accordingly, in its response,\\nWestech sought leave to amend its complaint “to assert\\nfacts sufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).” Id. Westech\\nalso argued in its response, inter alia, that the presence of\\nsales representatives and 3M’s sales in Washington sup-\\nported venue in the district and that 3M had a “principal\\nplace of business” and other business locations at various\\naddresses in Washington. J.A. 453–54.\\n 3M filed a reply supported by a declaration stating that\\nat the time of the original complaint, 3M did not own, lease,\\nuse, or maintain property at any of the locations identified\\nin Westech’s response. The declaration, signed by a senior\\nmanager in 3M’s Real Estate Department, further stated\\nthat 3M did not currently occupy any of the locations iden-\\ntified by Westech. Westech moved to strike 3M’s reply and\\naccompanying declaration because they discussed new in-\\nformation raised for the first time in 3M’s reply.\\n The district court denied 3M’s amended motion to dis-\\nmiss without prejudice. In addressing the venue issue, the\\ncourt agreed with 3M that a sales presence in the judicial\\ndistrict did not, by itself, satisfy the patent venue statute.\\nThe court, however, was persuaded that Westech could\\namend its complaint to allege proper venue, and therefore\\ngranted Westech leave to amend its complaint with a warn-\\ning to do so “consistent with its Rule 11 obligations.” J.A.\\n519.\\n Westech filed its second amended complaint on Sep-\\ntember 6, 2017. Instead of pleading facts to support proper\\nvenue, Westech parroted § 1400(b):\\n Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to\\n 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Defendants have com-\\n mitted acts of infringement in this judicial district\\n and 3M has one or more regular and established\\n places of business in this judicial district. Further-\\n more, on information and belief, Defendants\\n\\f4 WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n maintain contractual relationships with distribu-\\n tors of the infringing products who are located in\\n this judicial district, Defendants have sales repre-\\n sentatives located in this judicial district, Defend-\\n ants represent that they sell products in this\\n judicial district, and Defendants earn substantial\\n sales revenue from sales of the infringing products\\n in this judicial district.\\nJ.A. 521. Westech admits that it did not allege facts to sup-\\nport an allegation that Northstar had a regular and estab-\\nlished place of business in the judicial district. Appellant’s\\nBr. 20.\\n On September 14, 2017, 3M once again moved to dis-\\nmiss for improper venue. A few days later, this court is-\\nsued its decision in In re Cray Inc., which outlined the\\nrequirements for proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).\\n871 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that § 1400(b)\\nrequires a defendant to have a physical place in the district\\nthat serves as a regular and established place of business).\\nRelying in part on Cray, the district court agreed that\\nvenue was improper, stating that “[t]here is no factual ba-\\nsis upon which the Court can conclude that 3M has ‘a reg-\\nular and established’ place of business in this District, and\\ncertainly no basis for concluding that Northstar does.”\\nJ.A. 3. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to dis-\\nmiss and dismissed the case without prejudice. J.A. 3–4.\\nWestech timely appealed.\\n After Westech filed its opening brief on appeal, 3M\\nmoved for sanctions, requesting attorneys’ fees and double\\ncosts. 3M contends that Westech’s appeal is frivolous as\\nfiled because the district court’s judgment is plainly correct\\nin light of the fact that Westech failed to plead any facts\\nsupporting venue. 3M also asserts that Westech’s appeal\\nis frivolous as argued because Westech disregards the hold-\\nings in Cray and In re ZTE (USA) Inc., 890 F.3d 1008, 1013\\n(Fed. Cir. 2018).\\n\\fWESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY 5\\n\\n\\n\\n We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1295(a)(1).\\n DISCUSSION\\n Westech frames its appeal as a question of the proper\\npleading standards for venue and contends that it pleaded\\nfacts sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. 3M seeks\\nsanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for\\nattorneys’ fees and double costs for having to defend\\nWestech’s “frivolous” appeal. We address each issue in\\nturn.\\n Venue\\n We review de novo the question of proper venue under\\n28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Accord Immigrant Assistance Project\\nof L.A. Cty. Fed’n of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. I.N.S., 306 F.3d\\n842, 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (referencing the standard of review\\nfor venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)); Pierce v. Shorty\\nSmall’s of Branson Inc., 137 F.3d 1190, 1191 (10th Cir.\\n1998) (“The district court’s determination of where the ac-\\ntion may be brought involves an interpretation of the venue\\nstatute and is, therefore, a question of law subject to de\\nnovo review.”).\\n Two principles of patent venue law underlie our deci-\\nsion in this case. First, we held in ZTE that the plaintiff\\nhas the burden of establishing proper venue under 28\\nU.S.C. § 1400(b). 890 F.3d at 1013. Second, we held in\\nCray that venue under the patent statute is proper when\\nthe facts show that the defendant has a regular and estab-\\nlished place of business physically located within the judi-\\ncial district. 871 F.3d at 1360, 1364–67. Westech’s second\\namended complaint fails to meet these standards.\\n Westech failed to plead any facts showing 3M had a\\nregular and established place of business physically located\\nin the Western District of Washington. Westech repre-\\nsented to the district court that it would allege facts in its\\nsecond amended complaint showing that 3M was subject to\\n\\f6 WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nvenue in the judicial district, but then failed to do so, de-\\nspite the district court’s Rule 11 warning. Given an oppor-\\ntunity to amend its complaint to support its venue\\nallegations, Westech chose not to allege any facts in its sub-\\nsequent second amended complaint to support proper\\nvenue. 1\\n Westech, in effect, claims that in lieu of pleading facts,\\nit is sufficient to parrot the language of § 1400(b). This is\\nincorrect. Simply stating that 3M has a regular and estab-\\nlished place of business within the judicial district, without\\nmore, amounts to a mere legal conclusion that the court is\\nnot bound to accept as true. See McZeal v. Sprint Nextel\\nCorp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[C]onclusory\\nallegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual\\nconclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.”)\\n(quoting Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378\\n(5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted)).\\nWestech’s recitation of § 1400(b) is insufficient to survive a\\nmotion to dismiss for improper venue.\\n A presumption that facts pleaded in the complaint are\\ntrue does not supplant a plaintiff’s burden to plead specific\\nfacts showing that the defendant has a regular and estab-\\nlished place of business physically located in the judicial\\ndistrict. See Cray, 871 F.3d at 1360, 1364–67. Here,\\nWestech wholly failed to allege facts showing 3M had a reg-\\nular and established place of business in the Western Dis-\\ntrict of Washington.\\n We have considered Westech’s remaining arguments\\nand find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we hold that the\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 While Westech continued to allege facts regarding\\nthe presence of sales representatives within the judicial\\ndistrict, the district court had already ruled that having a\\nsales presence alone does not establish venue under\\n§ 1400(b).\\n\\fWESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY 7\\n\\n\\n\\ndistrict court did not err in granting 3M’s motion to dis-\\nmiss.\\n Motion for Sanctions\\n The merits of the appeal, and a party’s conduct during\\nappeal, drive whether attorneys’ fees and costs should be\\nawarded as sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Pro-\\ncedure 38. Walker v. Health Int’l Corp., 845 F.3d 1148,\\n1154 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Rule 38 provides that “[i]f a court of\\nappeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, af-\\nter a separately filed motion or notice from the court and\\nreasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages\\nand single or double costs to the appellee.” Thus, this court\\nhas discretion over whether to impose sanctions. Walker,\\n845 F.3d at 1157 (stating “we exercise our discretion to im-\\npose sanctions”).\\n An appeal can be frivolous in two ways: as filed and as\\nargued. An appeal is frivolous as filed when “the judgment\\nby the tribunal below was so plainly correct and the legal\\nauthority contrary to appellant’s position so clear that\\nthere really is no appealable issue.” State Indus., Inc. v.\\nMor–Flo Indus., Inc., 948 F.2d 1573, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991)\\n(quoting Finch v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 926 F.2d 1574,\\n1579–80 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). An appeal is frivolous as argued\\nwhen “the post-filing conduct of the litigant in arguing the\\nappeal” is frivolous. Id. (quoting Romala Corp. v. United\\nStates, 927 F.2d 1219, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). For example,\\nan appeal may be frivolous as argued when the appellant\\n“distort[s] the record, by disregarding or misrepresenting\\nthe clear authority against its position, and by attempting\\nto draw illogical deductions from the facts and the law.” Id.\\nat 1579.\\n We conclude that Westech’s appeal, while lacking\\nmerit, is not frivolous as filed. It was highly imprudent of\\nWestech to initiate an appeal in light of the district court’s\\ndismissal without prejudice and our holding in Cray, which\\nwas cited by the district court. As discussed above,\\n\\f8 WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nWestech alleged no facts in its second amended complaint\\nto show venue was proper in the Western District of Wash-\\nington despite the district court’s admonition that Westech\\namend its complaint consistent with its Rule 11 obliga-\\ntions. But at the time of filing the appeal, the question of\\nwho had the burden to show the defendant had a regular\\nand established place of business in the judicial district\\nwas not settled; our opinion in ZTE explicitly detailing the\\nburden of the plaintiff to establish venue had not issued.\\n On the other hand, Westech’s appeal is frivolous as ar-\\ngued. Westech disregards controlling law, here Cray and\\nZTE, despite being aware of both cases during pendency of\\nthis appeal. Westech cited ZTE in its opening brief and the\\ndistrict court explicitly discussed Cray in its judgment dis-\\nposing of the case. In fact, ZTE discusses our holding in\\nCray. ZTE, 890 F.3d at 1014–15. Yet, Westech failed to\\ncite Cray in its opening brief and asserts that Cray is not\\nrelevant to this appeal. Oral Arg. at 1:55–3:30 (Feb. 5,\\n2019), oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=\\n2018-1699.mp3. As discussed above, these cases are rele-\\nvant and clearly contrary to Westech’s position.\\n We do not however, believe such misconduct warrants\\nsanctions under these circumstances. Westech’s behavior\\non appeal borders on sanctionable, but we cannot fault\\nWestech for pursuing an appeal when the question of who\\nshoulders the burden of establishing proper venue under\\n§ 1400(b) had yet to be answered. It is due to the unique\\nprocedural posture here and the sequence of events in the\\nevolution of this court’s patent venue law that we deny\\n3M’s motion for sanctions.\\n CONCLUSION\\n For the foregoing reasons, we hold the district court did\\nnot err in granting the motion to dismiss for improper\\nvenue. We also deny 3M’s motion for sanctions.\\n AFFIRMED\\n\\fWESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY 9\\n\\n\\n\\n COSTS\\n Costs awarded to 3M and Northstar consistent with\\nFederal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3486,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4637122,"string":"4,637,122"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"In RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC, Appellant"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"In Re: Global Ip Holdings LLC"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"2018-1426"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Moore, Reyna, Stoll\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"STOLL, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC,\\n Appellant\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1426\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/632,238.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 5, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n FRANK A. ANGILERI, Brooks Kushman PC, Southfield,\\nMI, argued for appellant. Also represented by ROBERT C.J.\\nTUTTLE.\\n\\n KAKOLI CAPRIHAN, Office of the Solicitor, United States\\nPatent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for\\nappellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by THOMAS W.\\nKRAUSE, SARAH E. CRAVEN.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before MOORE, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\\nSTOLL, Circuit Judge.\\n Global IP Holdings, LLC appeals the Patent Trial and\\nAppeal Board’s decision affirming the examiner’s rejection\\nof its reissue claims for failure to comply with the written\\ndescription requirement. Because the legal standard ap-\\nplied by the Board conflicts with our precedent, we vacate\\n\\f2 IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC\\n\\n\\n\\nthe Board’s decision and remand for further proceedings\\nconsistent with this opinion.\\n BACKGROUND\\n Global owns U.S. Patent No. 8,690,233, which claims\\ncarpeted automotive vehicle load floors having sandwich-\\ntype composite panels with cellular cores. In one embodi-\\nment, the load floor refers to the back-side of a car seat,\\nwhich operates as the trunk floor when folded down. See\\n’233 patent, Fig. 5. Figure 6 of the ’233 patent shows the\\ncomposition of the claimed load floor:\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe specification discloses that hinged panel 10 is typically\\nmanufactured from a stack of material including “first and\\nsecond reinforced thermoplastic skins 16 and 18, respec-\\ntively, a thermoplastic cellular core 20 disposed between\\nthe skins 16 and 18 and a top layer of a substantially con-\\ntinuous covering layer generally indicated at 21.” Id.\\nat col. 4 ll. 35–42.\\n Global filed a reissue application, seeking to broaden\\nits claims in the ’233 patent. In particular, it replaced the\\nterm “thermoplastic” with “plastic” in independent claims\\n\\fIN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC 3\\n\\n\\n1, 14, and 17. Global’s reissue claim 1 is representative\\nand reproduced below, with strikeouts indicating the dele-\\ntions made to the original claim:\\n 1. A carpeted automotive vehicle load floor com-\\n prising:\\n a composite panel having first and second rein-\\n forced thermoplastic skins and a thermoplastic cel-\\n lular core disposed between and bonded to the\\n skins, the first skin having a top surface;\\n a cover having top and bottom surfaces and spaced\\n apart from the composite panel; and\\n a substantially continuous top covering layer\\n bonded to the top surface of the panel and the top\\n surface of the cover to at least partially form a car-\\n peted load floor having a carpeted cover, wherein\\n an intermediate portion of the top covering layer\\n between the cover and the panel is not bonded to\\n either the panel or the cover to form a living hinge\\n which allows the carpeted cover to pivot between\\n different use positions relative to the rest of the\\n load floor.\\nJ.A. 40.\\n The Patent Office’s rules for reissue applications re-\\nquire an inventor oath or declaration specifically identify-\\ning the error relied on as the basis for the reissue.\\n37 C.F.R. § 1.175. Here, inventor Darius J. Preisler filed a\\ndeclaration explaining that he is the inventor of over fifty\\nU.S. patents in the field of plastic-molded products and\\nthat, at the time of the invention, he was aware of the use\\nof plastics other than thermoplastics for the formation of a\\nsandwich-type composite panel with a cellular core. See\\nJ.A. 213–20 ¶¶ 5–26. He also cited patents and patent ap-\\nplications, including his own, as well as technical papers\\npurportedly disclosing the use of thermoset plastics\\n\\f4 IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n(instead of thermoplastics) in vehicle load floors. See\\nJ.A. 216–220 ¶¶ 8–26.\\n The examiner rejected Global’s reissue claims 1–21 for\\nfailing to comply with the written description requirement\\nof 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See J.A. 366–67. The\\nexaminer noted that “the specification indicates that the\\nfirst and second skins and core are only described as being\\nformed from thermoplastic materials and are not described\\nas being formed generally from plastic materials.” J.A. 367\\n(citing ’233 patent col. 1 ll. 25–28, col. 2 ll. 30–32, 59–60,\\ncol. 3 ll. 3–6, 28–29, col. 4 ll. 35–40, 42–45, col. 5 ll. 9–14,\\n19–21, 37–39). After finding that “the specification only\\nsupports thermoplastics,” the examiner determined that\\nGlobal “cannot claim the full range of plastics, which would\\ninclude thermosetting as well as thermoplastics.” Id. Ac-\\ncording to the examiner, by changing the term “thermo-\\nplastic” to “plastic,” Global introduced new matter. See id.\\n The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of reissue\\nclaims 1–21 under § 112, first paragraph. Ex Parte Preis-\\nler, No. 2018-000871, 2017 WL 6882664, at *1 (P.T.A.B.\\nDec. 29, 2017) (“Decision”). Global argued before the Board\\nthat, because the type of plastic used is not critical to the\\ninvention and plastics other than thermoplastics were pre-\\ndictable options, the disclosure of thermoplastics (species)\\nsupports the claiming of plastics (genus). See id. at *2–3.\\nGlobal also cited the inventor declaration, see id. at *2,\\nwhich explained that multiple types of plastics other than\\nthermoplastics were known for use in automotive load\\nfloors and that the specific type of plastic from which the\\nskins and core of the panels are fabricated is not critical to\\nthe claimed invention. See J.A. 217–20 ¶¶ 15, 21, 24–26,\\n28. The Board rejected Global’s arguments. It agreed with\\nthe examiner that the specification only describes the skins\\nand core of the claimed load floor as being formed from\\nthermoplastic materials. See Decision, 2017 WL 6882664,\\nat *3. The Board explained that “regardless of the predict-\\nability of results of substituting alternatives, or the actual\\n\\fIN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC 5\\n\\n\\ncriticality of thermoplastics in the overall invention,\\n[Global’s] Specification, as a whole, indicates to one skilled\\nin the art that the inventors had possession only of the\\nskins and core comprising specifically thermoplastic.” Id.\\n Global appeals the Board’s decision. We have jurisdic-\\ntion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).\\n DISCUSSION\\n We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and its\\nfact findings for substantial evidence. Belden Inc. v. Berk-\\nTek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A finding\\nis supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind\\nmight accept the evidence as sufficient to support the find-\\ning. See Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229\\n(1938).\\n Section 112 of the patent statute provides in relevant\\npart:\\n The specification shall contain a written descrip-\\n tion of the invention, and of the manner and pro-\\n cess of making and using it, in such full, clear,\\n concise, and exact terms as to enable any person\\n skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which\\n it is most nearly connected, to make and use the\\n same . . . .\\n35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (2006). 1 This written description re-\\nquirement is met when the specification clearly allows\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Paragraph 1 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was replaced with\\nnewly designated § 112(a) by section 4(c) of the Leahy-\\nSmith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29,\\nsec. 4(c), 125 Stat. 284, 296 (2011). Section 4(e) of the AIA\\napplied that change “to any patent application that is filed\\non or after” September 16, 2012. Id. sec. 4(e), 125 Stat.\\nat 297. Because the application resulting in the ’233 patent\\n\\f6 IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC\\n\\n\\n\\npersons of ordinary skill to recognize that the inventor “in-\\nvented what is claimed.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly &\\nCo., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quot-\\ning Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563\\n(Fed. Cir. 1991)). In other words, the test for sufficiency is\\nwhether the specification “reasonably conveys to those\\nskilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the\\nclaimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. This test\\ninvolves an inquiry into the four corners of the specification\\nfrom the perspective of a person of ordinary skill. Id. De-\\ntermining whether a patent complies with the written de-\\nscription requirement is a question of fact that necessarily\\nvaries depending on the context. Id. “[T]he level of detail\\nrequired to satisfy the written description requirement\\nvaries depending on the nature and scope of the claims and\\non the complexity and predictability of the relevant tech-\\nnology.” Id.\\n We hold that the Board legally erred in its analysis of\\nwhether the ’233 patent complies with the written descrip-\\ntion requirement under § 112, first paragraph. The Board\\nfound that the ’233 patent’s specification was insufficient\\n“regardless of the predictability of results of substituting al-\\nternatives, or the actual criticality of thermoplastics in the\\noverall invention.” Decision, 2017 WL 6882664, at *3 (em-\\nphasis added). This statement conflicts with Ariad, which\\ninstructs that “the level of detail required to satisfy the\\nwritten description requirement varies depending on the\\nnature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and\\npredictability of the relevant technology.” 598 F.3d at 1351\\n(emphasis added). Contrary to the Board’s statement, the\\npredictability of substituting generic plastics for thermo-\\nplastics in the skins and cellular cores of vehicle load floors\\nis relevant to the written description inquiry.\\n\\n\\n\\nwas filed before that date, we refer to the pre-AIA version\\nof § 112.\\n\\fIN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC 7\\n\\n\\n In addition to predictability, we have held that the crit-\\nicality or importance of an unclaimed limitation to the in-\\nvention can be relevant to the written description inquiry.\\nSee In re Peters, 723 F.2d 891, 893–94 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In\\nPeters, the original claims required, among other things, a\\nmetal tip having a tapered shape. Id. at 892. The patent\\nowner filed a reissue application seeking to broaden the\\nclaims to cover both tapered and non-tapered tips. Id. The\\nBoard held that the broadened claims sought by the reissue\\napplication were not supported by the original disclosure\\nbecause the only tips disclosed were tapered. Id. at 893.\\nWe disagreed, holding that “[t]he broadened claims merely\\nomit an unnecessary limitation that had restricted one el-\\nement of the invention to the exact and non-critical shape\\ndisclosed in the original patent.” Id. We reasoned that the\\ndisclosed tip configuration was not critical because no prior\\nart was overcome based on the tip shape and “one skilled\\nin the art would readily understand that in practicing the\\ninvention it is unimportant whether the tips are tapered.”\\nId.\\n We see nothing in Ariad rejecting the analysis in Pe-\\nters. In Ariad, we identified a number of factors that bear\\non whether a written description disclosing a species sup-\\nports generic claims, including “the existing knowledge in\\na particular field, the extent and content of the prior art,\\nthe maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predict-\\nability of the aspect at issue.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351\\n(quoting Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir.\\n2005)). Ariad did not present an exhaustive list of relevant\\nfactors, and we hold that, in some cases, the criticality or\\nimportance of the expressly disclosed species may be rele-\\nvant to whether an inventor had possession of a claimed\\ngenus.\\n Global requests that we reverse, arguing that “there is\\nno evidence in the record to support any finding that the\\n‘plastic’ limitation is critical.” Appellant Br. 12. We de-\\ncline to decide this factual question in the first instance.\\n\\f8 IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC\\n\\n\\n\\nWe thus vacate the Board’s decision. On remand, the\\nBoard should address the relevant factors, including pre-\\ndictability and criticality, based on the record evidence and\\ndetermine whether the written description requirement\\nhas been satisfied under the proper legal standard.\\n VACATED AND REMANDED\\n COSTS\\n Costs to Appellant.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4414375/\", \"author_raw\": \"STOLL, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MOORE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"REYNA"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"STOLL"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637122/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: In RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC, Appellant\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC,\n Appellant\n ______________________\n\n 2018-1426\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/632,238.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: July 5, 2019\n ______________________\n\n FRANK A. ANGILERI, Brooks Kushman PC, Southfield,\nMI, argued for appellant. Also represented by ROBERT C.J.\nTUTTLE.\n\n KAKOLI CAPRIHAN, Office of the Solicitor, United States\nPatent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for\nappellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by THOMAS W.\nKRAUSE, SARAH E. CRAVEN.\n ______________________\n\n Before MOORE, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\nSTOLL, Circuit Judge.\n Global IP Holdings, LLC appeals the Patent Trial and\nAppeal Board’s decision affirming the examiner’s rejection\nof its reissue claims for failure to comply with the written\ndescription requirement. Because the legal standard ap-\nplied by the Board conflicts with our precedent, we vacate\n\f2 IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC\n\n\n\nthe Board’s decision and remand for further proceedings\nconsistent with this opinion.\n BACKGROUND\n Global owns U.S. Patent No. 8,690,233, which claims\ncarpeted automotive vehicle load floors having sandwich-\ntype composite panels with cellular cores. In one embodi-\nment, the load floor refers to the back-side of a car seat,\nwhich operates as the trunk floor when folded down. See\n’233 patent, Fig. 5. Figure 6 of the ’233 patent shows the\ncomposition of the claimed load floor:\n\n\n\n\nThe specification discloses that hinged panel 10 is typically\nmanufactured from a stack of material including “first and\nsecond reinforced thermoplastic skins 16 and 18, respec-\ntively, a thermoplastic cellular core 20 disposed between\nthe skins 16 and 18 and a top layer of a substantially con-\ntinuous covering layer generally indicated at 21.” Id.\nat col. 4 ll. 35–42.\n Global filed a reissue application, seeking to broaden\nits claims in the ’233 patent. In particular, it replaced the\nterm “thermoplastic” with “plastic” in independent claims\n\fIN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC 3\n\n\n1, 14, and 17. Global’s reissue claim 1 is representative\nand reproduced below, with strikeouts indicating the dele-\ntions made to the original claim:\n 1. A carpeted automotive vehicle load floor com-\n prising:\n a composite panel having first and second rein-\n forced thermoplastic skins and a thermoplastic cel-\n lular core disposed between and bonded to the\n skins, the first skin having a top surface;\n a cover having top and bottom surfaces and spaced\n apart from the composite panel; and\n a substantially continuous top covering layer\n bonded to the top surface of the panel and the top\n surface of the cover to at least partially form a car-\n peted load floor having a carpeted cover, wherein\n an intermediate portion of the top covering layer\n between the cover and the panel is not bonded to\n either the panel or the cover to form a living hinge\n which allows the carpeted cover to pivot between\n different use positions relative to the rest of the\n load floor.\nJ.A. 40.\n The Patent Office’s rules for reissue applications re-\nquire an inventor oath or declaration specifically identify-\ning the error relied on as the basis for the reissue.\n37 C.F.R. § 1.175. Here, inventor Darius J. Preisler filed a\ndeclaration explaining that he is the inventor of over fifty\nU.S. patents in the field of plastic-molded products and\nthat, at the time of the invention, he was aware of the use\nof plastics other than thermoplastics for the formation of a\nsandwich-type composite panel with a cellular core. See\nJ.A. 213–20 ¶¶ 5–26. He also cited patents and patent ap-\nplications, including his own, as well as technical papers\npurportedly disclosing the use of thermoset plastics\n\f4 IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC\n\n\n\n(instead of thermoplastics) in vehicle load floors. See\nJ.A. 216–220 ¶¶ 8–26.\n The examiner rejected Global’s reissue claims 1–21 for\nfailing to comply with the written description requirement\nof 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See J.A. 366–67. The\nexaminer noted that “the specification indicates that the\nfirst and second skins and core are only described as being\nformed from thermoplastic materials and are not described\nas being formed generally from plastic materials.” J.A. 367\n(citing ’233 patent col. 1 ll. 25–28, col. 2 ll. 30–32, 59–60,\ncol. 3 ll. 3–6, 28–29, col. 4 ll. 35–40, 42–45, col. 5 ll. 9–14,\n19–21, 37–39). After finding that “the specification only\nsupports thermoplastics,” the examiner determined that\nGlobal “cannot claim the full range of plastics, which would\ninclude thermosetting as well as thermoplastics.” Id. Ac-\ncording to the examiner, by changing the term “thermo-\nplastic” to “plastic,” Global introduced new matter. See id.\n The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of reissue\nclaims 1–21 under § 112, first paragraph. Ex Parte Preis-\nler, No. 2018-000871, 2017 WL 6882664, at *1 (P.T.A.B.\nDec. 29, 2017) (“Decision”). Global argued before the Board\nthat, because the type of plastic used is not critical to the\ninvention and plastics other than thermoplastics were pre-\ndictable options, the disclosure of thermoplastics (species)\nsupports the claiming of plastics (genus). See id. at *2–3.\nGlobal also cited the inventor declaration, see id. at *2,\nwhich explained that multiple types of plastics other than\nthermoplastics were known for use in automotive load\nfloors and that the specific type of plastic from which the\nskins and core of the panels are fabricated is not critical to\nthe claimed invention. See J.A. 217–20 ¶¶ 15, 21, 24–26,\n28. The Board rejected Global’s arguments. It agreed with\nthe examiner that the specification only describes the skins\nand core of the claimed load floor as being formed from\nthermoplastic materials. See Decision, 2017 WL 6882664,\nat *3. The Board explained that “regardless of the predict-\nability of results of substituting alternatives, or the actual\n\fIN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC 5\n\n\ncriticality of thermoplastics in the overall invention,\n[Global’s] Specification, as a whole, indicates to one skilled\nin the art that the inventors had possession only of the\nskins and core comprising specifically thermoplastic.” Id.\n Global appeals the Board’s decision. We have jurisdic-\ntion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).\n DISCUSSION\n We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and its\nfact findings for substantial evidence. Belden Inc. v. Berk-\nTek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A finding\nis supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind\nmight accept the evidence as sufficient to support the find-\ning. See Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229\n(1938).\n Section 112 of the patent statute provides in relevant\npart:\n The specification shall contain a written descrip-\n tion of the invention, and of the manner and pro-\n cess of making and using it, in such full, clear,\n concise, and exact terms as to enable any person\n skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which\n it is most nearly connected, to make and use the\n same . . . .\n35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (2006). 1 This written description re-\nquirement is met when the specification clearly allows\n\n\n\n 1 Paragraph 1 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was replaced with\nnewly designated § 112(a) by section 4(c) of the Leahy-\nSmith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29,\nsec. 4(c), 125 Stat. 284, 296 (2011). Section 4(e) of the AIA\napplied that change “to any patent application that is filed\non or after” September 16, 2012. Id. sec. 4(e), 125 Stat.\nat 297. Because the application resulting in the ’233 patent\n\f6 IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC\n\n\n\npersons of ordinary skill to recognize that the inventor “in-\nvented what is claimed.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly &\nCo., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quot-\ning Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563\n(Fed. Cir. 1991)). In other words, the test for sufficiency is\nwhether the specification “reasonably conveys to those\nskilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the\nclaimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. This test\ninvolves an inquiry into the four corners of the specification\nfrom the perspective of a person of ordinary skill. Id. De-\ntermining whether a patent complies with the written de-\nscription requirement is a question of fact that necessarily\nvaries depending on the context. Id. “[T]he level of detail\nrequired to satisfy the written description requirement\nvaries depending on the nature and scope of the claims and\non the complexity and predictability of the relevant tech-\nnology.” Id.\n We hold that the Board legally erred in its analysis of\nwhether the ’233 patent complies with the written descrip-\ntion requirement under § 112, first paragraph. The Board\nfound that the ’233 patent’s specification was insufficient\n“regardless of the predictability of results of substituting al-\nternatives, or the actual criticality of thermoplastics in the\noverall invention.” Decision, 2017 WL 6882664, at *3 (em-\nphasis added). This statement conflicts with Ariad, which\ninstructs that “the level of detail required to satisfy the\nwritten description requirement varies depending on the\nnature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and\npredictability of the relevant technology.” 598 F.3d at 1351\n(emphasis added). Contrary to the Board’s statement, the\npredictability of substituting generic plastics for thermo-\nplastics in the skins and cellular cores of vehicle load floors\nis relevant to the written description inquiry.\n\n\n\nwas filed before that date, we refer to the pre-AIA version\nof § 112.\n\fIN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC 7\n\n\n In addition to predictability, we have held that the crit-\nicality or importance of an unclaimed limitation to the in-\nvention can be relevant to the written description inquiry.\nSee In re Peters, 723 F.2d 891, 893–94 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In\nPeters, the original claims required, among other things, a\nmetal tip having a tapered shape. Id. at 892. The patent\nowner filed a reissue application seeking to broaden the\nclaims to cover both tapered and non-tapered tips. Id. The\nBoard held that the broadened claims sought by the reissue\napplication were not supported by the original disclosure\nbecause the only tips disclosed were tapered. Id. at 893.\nWe disagreed, holding that “[t]he broadened claims merely\nomit an unnecessary limitation that had restricted one el-\nement of the invention to the exact and non-critical shape\ndisclosed in the original patent.” Id. We reasoned that the\ndisclosed tip configuration was not critical because no prior\nart was overcome based on the tip shape and “one skilled\nin the art would readily understand that in practicing the\ninvention it is unimportant whether the tips are tapered.”\nId.\n We see nothing in Ariad rejecting the analysis in Pe-\nters. In Ariad, we identified a number of factors that bear\non whether a written description disclosing a species sup-\nports generic claims, including “the existing knowledge in\na particular field, the extent and content of the prior art,\nthe maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predict-\nability of the aspect at issue.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351\n(quoting Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir.\n2005)). Ariad did not present an exhaustive list of relevant\nfactors, and we hold that, in some cases, the criticality or\nimportance of the expressly disclosed species may be rele-\nvant to whether an inventor had possession of a claimed\ngenus.\n Global requests that we reverse, arguing that “there is\nno evidence in the record to support any finding that the\n‘plastic’ limitation is critical.” Appellant Br. 12. We de-\ncline to decide this factual question in the first instance.\n\f8 IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC\n\n\n\nWe thus vacate the Board’s decision. On remand, the\nBoard should address the relevant factors, including pre-\ndictability and criticality, based on the record evidence and\ndetermine whether the written description requirement\nhas been satisfied under the proper legal standard.\n VACATED AND REMANDED\n COSTS\n Costs to Appellant.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: In RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC, Appellant\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC,\\n Appellant\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1426\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/632,238.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 5, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n FRANK A. ANGILERI, Brooks Kushman PC, Southfield,\\nMI, argued for appellant. Also represented by ROBERT C.J.\\nTUTTLE.\\n\\n KAKOLI CAPRIHAN, Office of the Solicitor, United States\\nPatent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for\\nappellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by THOMAS W.\\nKRAUSE, SARAH E. CRAVEN.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before MOORE, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\\nSTOLL, Circuit Judge.\\n Global IP Holdings, LLC appeals the Patent Trial and\\nAppeal Board’s decision affirming the examiner’s rejection\\nof its reissue claims for failure to comply with the written\\ndescription requirement. Because the legal standard ap-\\nplied by the Board conflicts with our precedent, we vacate\\n\\f2 IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC\\n\\n\\n\\nthe Board’s decision and remand for further proceedings\\nconsistent with this opinion.\\n BACKGROUND\\n Global owns U.S. Patent No. 8,690,233, which claims\\ncarpeted automotive vehicle load floors having sandwich-\\ntype composite panels with cellular cores. In one embodi-\\nment, the load floor refers to the back-side of a car seat,\\nwhich operates as the trunk floor when folded down. See\\n’233 patent, Fig. 5. Figure 6 of the ’233 patent shows the\\ncomposition of the claimed load floor:\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe specification discloses that hinged panel 10 is typically\\nmanufactured from a stack of material including “first and\\nsecond reinforced thermoplastic skins 16 and 18, respec-\\ntively, a thermoplastic cellular core 20 disposed between\\nthe skins 16 and 18 and a top layer of a substantially con-\\ntinuous covering layer generally indicated at 21.” Id.\\nat col. 4 ll. 35–42.\\n Global filed a reissue application, seeking to broaden\\nits claims in the ’233 patent. In particular, it replaced the\\nterm “thermoplastic” with “plastic” in independent claims\\n\\fIN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC 3\\n\\n\\n1, 14, and 17. Global’s reissue claim 1 is representative\\nand reproduced below, with strikeouts indicating the dele-\\ntions made to the original claim:\\n 1. A carpeted automotive vehicle load floor com-\\n prising:\\n a composite panel having first and second rein-\\n forced thermoplastic skins and a thermoplastic cel-\\n lular core disposed between and bonded to the\\n skins, the first skin having a top surface;\\n a cover having top and bottom surfaces and spaced\\n apart from the composite panel; and\\n a substantially continuous top covering layer\\n bonded to the top surface of the panel and the top\\n surface of the cover to at least partially form a car-\\n peted load floor having a carpeted cover, wherein\\n an intermediate portion of the top covering layer\\n between the cover and the panel is not bonded to\\n either the panel or the cover to form a living hinge\\n which allows the carpeted cover to pivot between\\n different use positions relative to the rest of the\\n load floor.\\nJ.A. 40.\\n The Patent Office’s rules for reissue applications re-\\nquire an inventor oath or declaration specifically identify-\\ning the error relied on as the basis for the reissue.\\n37 C.F.R. § 1.175. Here, inventor Darius J. Preisler filed a\\ndeclaration explaining that he is the inventor of over fifty\\nU.S. patents in the field of plastic-molded products and\\nthat, at the time of the invention, he was aware of the use\\nof plastics other than thermoplastics for the formation of a\\nsandwich-type composite panel with a cellular core. See\\nJ.A. 213–20 ¶¶ 5–26. He also cited patents and patent ap-\\nplications, including his own, as well as technical papers\\npurportedly disclosing the use of thermoset plastics\\n\\f4 IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n(instead of thermoplastics) in vehicle load floors. See\\nJ.A. 216–220 ¶¶ 8–26.\\n The examiner rejected Global’s reissue claims 1–21 for\\nfailing to comply with the written description requirement\\nof 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See J.A. 366–67. The\\nexaminer noted that “the specification indicates that the\\nfirst and second skins and core are only described as being\\nformed from thermoplastic materials and are not described\\nas being formed generally from plastic materials.” J.A. 367\\n(citing ’233 patent col. 1 ll. 25–28, col. 2 ll. 30–32, 59–60,\\ncol. 3 ll. 3–6, 28–29, col. 4 ll. 35–40, 42–45, col. 5 ll. 9–14,\\n19–21, 37–39). After finding that “the specification only\\nsupports thermoplastics,” the examiner determined that\\nGlobal “cannot claim the full range of plastics, which would\\ninclude thermosetting as well as thermoplastics.” Id. Ac-\\ncording to the examiner, by changing the term “thermo-\\nplastic” to “plastic,” Global introduced new matter. See id.\\n The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of reissue\\nclaims 1–21 under § 112, first paragraph. Ex Parte Preis-\\nler, No. 2018-000871, 2017 WL 6882664, at *1 (P.T.A.B.\\nDec. 29, 2017) (“Decision”). Global argued before the Board\\nthat, because the type of plastic used is not critical to the\\ninvention and plastics other than thermoplastics were pre-\\ndictable options, the disclosure of thermoplastics (species)\\nsupports the claiming of plastics (genus). See id. at *2–3.\\nGlobal also cited the inventor declaration, see id. at *2,\\nwhich explained that multiple types of plastics other than\\nthermoplastics were known for use in automotive load\\nfloors and that the specific type of plastic from which the\\nskins and core of the panels are fabricated is not critical to\\nthe claimed invention. See J.A. 217–20 ¶¶ 15, 21, 24–26,\\n28. The Board rejected Global’s arguments. It agreed with\\nthe examiner that the specification only describes the skins\\nand core of the claimed load floor as being formed from\\nthermoplastic materials. See Decision, 2017 WL 6882664,\\nat *3. The Board explained that “regardless of the predict-\\nability of results of substituting alternatives, or the actual\\n\\fIN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC 5\\n\\n\\ncriticality of thermoplastics in the overall invention,\\n[Global’s] Specification, as a whole, indicates to one skilled\\nin the art that the inventors had possession only of the\\nskins and core comprising specifically thermoplastic.” Id.\\n Global appeals the Board’s decision. We have jurisdic-\\ntion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).\\n DISCUSSION\\n We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and its\\nfact findings for substantial evidence. Belden Inc. v. Berk-\\nTek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A finding\\nis supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind\\nmight accept the evidence as sufficient to support the find-\\ning. See Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229\\n(1938).\\n Section 112 of the patent statute provides in relevant\\npart:\\n The specification shall contain a written descrip-\\n tion of the invention, and of the manner and pro-\\n cess of making and using it, in such full, clear,\\n concise, and exact terms as to enable any person\\n skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which\\n it is most nearly connected, to make and use the\\n same . . . .\\n35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (2006). 1 This written description re-\\nquirement is met when the specification clearly allows\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Paragraph 1 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was replaced with\\nnewly designated § 112(a) by section 4(c) of the Leahy-\\nSmith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29,\\nsec. 4(c), 125 Stat. 284, 296 (2011). Section 4(e) of the AIA\\napplied that change “to any patent application that is filed\\non or after” September 16, 2012. Id. sec. 4(e), 125 Stat.\\nat 297. Because the application resulting in the ’233 patent\\n\\f6 IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC\\n\\n\\n\\npersons of ordinary skill to recognize that the inventor “in-\\nvented what is claimed.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly &\\nCo., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quot-\\ning Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563\\n(Fed. Cir. 1991)). In other words, the test for sufficiency is\\nwhether the specification “reasonably conveys to those\\nskilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the\\nclaimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. This test\\ninvolves an inquiry into the four corners of the specification\\nfrom the perspective of a person of ordinary skill. Id. De-\\ntermining whether a patent complies with the written de-\\nscription requirement is a question of fact that necessarily\\nvaries depending on the context. Id. “[T]he level of detail\\nrequired to satisfy the written description requirement\\nvaries depending on the nature and scope of the claims and\\non the complexity and predictability of the relevant tech-\\nnology.” Id.\\n We hold that the Board legally erred in its analysis of\\nwhether the ’233 patent complies with the written descrip-\\ntion requirement under § 112, first paragraph. The Board\\nfound that the ’233 patent’s specification was insufficient\\n“regardless of the predictability of results of substituting al-\\nternatives, or the actual criticality of thermoplastics in the\\noverall invention.” Decision, 2017 WL 6882664, at *3 (em-\\nphasis added). This statement conflicts with Ariad, which\\ninstructs that “the level of detail required to satisfy the\\nwritten description requirement varies depending on the\\nnature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and\\npredictability of the relevant technology.” 598 F.3d at 1351\\n(emphasis added). Contrary to the Board’s statement, the\\npredictability of substituting generic plastics for thermo-\\nplastics in the skins and cellular cores of vehicle load floors\\nis relevant to the written description inquiry.\\n\\n\\n\\nwas filed before that date, we refer to the pre-AIA version\\nof § 112.\\n\\fIN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC 7\\n\\n\\n In addition to predictability, we have held that the crit-\\nicality or importance of an unclaimed limitation to the in-\\nvention can be relevant to the written description inquiry.\\nSee In re Peters, 723 F.2d 891, 893–94 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In\\nPeters, the original claims required, among other things, a\\nmetal tip having a tapered shape. Id. at 892. The patent\\nowner filed a reissue application seeking to broaden the\\nclaims to cover both tapered and non-tapered tips. Id. The\\nBoard held that the broadened claims sought by the reissue\\napplication were not supported by the original disclosure\\nbecause the only tips disclosed were tapered. Id. at 893.\\nWe disagreed, holding that “[t]he broadened claims merely\\nomit an unnecessary limitation that had restricted one el-\\nement of the invention to the exact and non-critical shape\\ndisclosed in the original patent.” Id. We reasoned that the\\ndisclosed tip configuration was not critical because no prior\\nart was overcome based on the tip shape and “one skilled\\nin the art would readily understand that in practicing the\\ninvention it is unimportant whether the tips are tapered.”\\nId.\\n We see nothing in Ariad rejecting the analysis in Pe-\\nters. In Ariad, we identified a number of factors that bear\\non whether a written description disclosing a species sup-\\nports generic claims, including “the existing knowledge in\\na particular field, the extent and content of the prior art,\\nthe maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predict-\\nability of the aspect at issue.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351\\n(quoting Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir.\\n2005)). Ariad did not present an exhaustive list of relevant\\nfactors, and we hold that, in some cases, the criticality or\\nimportance of the expressly disclosed species may be rele-\\nvant to whether an inventor had possession of a claimed\\ngenus.\\n Global requests that we reverse, arguing that “there is\\nno evidence in the record to support any finding that the\\n‘plastic’ limitation is critical.” Appellant Br. 12. We de-\\ncline to decide this factual question in the first instance.\\n\\f8 IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC\\n\\n\\n\\nWe thus vacate the Board’s decision. On remand, the\\nBoard should address the relevant factors, including pre-\\ndictability and criticality, based on the record evidence and\\ndetermine whether the written description requirement\\nhas been satisfied under the proper legal standard.\\n VACATED AND REMANDED\\n COSTS\\n Costs to Appellant.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3487,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4637124,"string":"4,637,124"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-2508"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n July 5, 2019\\n\\n ERRATUM\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal No. 2017-2508\\n\\n ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD\\n UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCK-\\n GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER\\n WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA\\nMAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC,\\n Defendants-Appellees\\n\\n Decided: February 6, 2019\\n Precedential Opinion\\n ______________________\\n\\nThe following change has been made:\\n\\nPage 13, line 28, “409 U.S. at 71–72” has been changed to\\n“437 U.S. at 589–90”.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4414377/\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637124/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n July 5, 2019\n\n ERRATUM\n ______________________\n\n Appeal No. 2017-2508\n\n ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD\n UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCK-\n GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER\n WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\n\n v.\n\n MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA\nMAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC,\n Defendants-Appellees\n\n Decided: February 6, 2019\n Precedential Opinion\n ______________________\n\nThe following change has been made:\n\nPage 13, line 28, “409 U.S. at 71–72” has been changed to\n“437 U.S. at 589–90”.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n July 5, 2019\\n\\n ERRATUM\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal No. 2017-2508\\n\\n ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD\\n UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCK-\\n GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER\\n WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA\\nMAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC,\\n Defendants-Appellees\\n\\n Decided: February 6, 2019\\n Precedential Opinion\\n ______________________\\n\\nThe following change has been made:\\n\\nPage 13, line 28, “409 U.S. at 71–72” has been changed to\\n“437 U.S. at 589–90”.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3488,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4637981,"string":"4,637,981"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"TQ DELTA, LLC, Appellant v. DISH NETWORK LLC, Appellee"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Tq Delta, LLC v. Dish Network LLC"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-10"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"2018-1799"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Newman, Linn, Wallach\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"WALLACH, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n TQ DELTA, LLC,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n DISH NETWORK LLC,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1799\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-\\n01470.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 10, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n RAJENDRA A. CHIPLUNKAR, McAndrews, Held & Malloy,\\nLtd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented\\nby PETER J. MCANDREWS, DAVID Z. PETTY.\\n\\n HEIDI LYN KEEFE, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued\\nfor appellee. Also represented by JENNIFER VOLK, Reston,\\nVA; STEPHEN R. SMITH, Washington, DC.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before NEWMAN, LINN, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f2 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nWALLACH, Circuit Judge.\\n Appellee DISH Network (“Dish”) sought inter partes\\nreview (“IPR”) of claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 (“the Challenged\\nClaims”) of Appellant TQ Delta, LLC’s (“TQ Delta”) U.S.\\nPatent No. 8,611,404 (“the ’404 patent”). The U.S. Patent\\nand Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board\\n(“PTAB”) issued a final written decision finding, inter alia,\\nthat the Challenged Claims are unpatentable as obvious.\\nSee DISH Network LLC. v. TQ Delta, LLC, No. IPR2016-\\n01470 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2018) (J.A. 1–38).\\n TQ Delta appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28\\nU.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) (2012). We affirm.\\n BACKGROUND\\n Entitled “Multicarrier Transmission System with Low\\nPower Sleep Mode and Rapid-On Capability,” the ’404 pa-\\ntent relates to the field of “multicarrier transmission sys-\\ntems.” ’404 patent col. 1 l. 31. “Multicarrier transmission\\nsystems provide high speed data links between communi-\\ncation points[ and have recently been used] . . . for commu-\\nnications over the local subscriber loop that connects a\\ntelephone service subscriber to a central telephone of-\\nfice. . . .” 1 Id. col. 1 ll. 37–41. The ’404 patent generally\\ndescribes a method for “establishing a power management\\nsleep state in a multicarrier system” and efficiently waking\\nup a transmission system utilized on hardware, such as a\\ncomputer, from sleep mode. Id. col. 1 ll. 32–33; see id., Ab-\\nstract. The process involved when the transmission system\\n\\n\\n 1 The ’404 patent explains that the recent applica-\\ntion of these systems described in the patent “are com-\\nmonly referred to as ‘xDSL’ systems, where the ‘x’ specifies\\na particular variant of DSL (digital subscriber loop) com-\\nmunications, e.g., ADSL (asynchronous digital subscriber\\nloop), HDSL (High-Speed Digital Subscriber Loop), etc.”\\n’404 patent col. 1 ll. 42–47.\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 3\\n\\n\\n\\nis first powered up prior to sleep mode is referred to as\\n“full . . . initialization.” Id., Abstract. Specifically, the ’404\\npatent describes the invention “in the context of an ADSL\\nsystem having a first transceiver located at the site of a\\ncustomer’s premises,” referred to as the “CPE transceiver,”\\nas well as “a second transceiver located at a local central\\ntelephone office” referred to as the “CO transceiver.” Id.\\ncol. 3 ll. 63–67 (internal quotation marks omitted). The\\n’404 patent explains that “since the CPE transceiver and\\nCO transceiver are very similar, the invention [is] ex-\\nplained in connection with a detailed illustration of the\\nCPE transceiver only.” Id. col. 4 ll. 11–13. Generally, in\\nDSL systems, “a pair of transceivers communicate with\\n[each] other by dividing the overall bandwidth of the chan-\\nnel interconnecting the subscriber and the central office\\ninto a large number of separate subchannels, each of lim-\\nited bandwidth, operating in parallel with each other.” Id.\\ncol. 1 ll. 48–52.\\n Independent claim 6 is illustrative and recites:\\n An apparatus comprising a transceiver operable to:\\n receive, in a full power mode, a plurality of\\n superframes, wherein the superframe com-\\n prises a plurality of data frames followed\\n by a synchronization frame;\\n receive, in the full power mode, a synchro-\\n nization signal;\\n transmit a message to enter into a low\\n power mode;\\n store, in a low power mode, at least one pa-\\n rameter associated with the full power\\n mode operation wherein the at least one\\n parameter comprises at least one of a fine\\n gain parameter and a bit allocation param-\\n eter;\\n\\f4 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n receive, in the low power mode, a synchro-\\n nization signal; and\\n exit from the low power and restore the full\\n power mode by using the at least one pa-\\n rameter and without needing to reinitialize\\n the transceiver.\\nId. col. 10 ll. 29–43 (emphasis added).\\n DISCUSSION\\n TQ Delta challenges the PTAB’s claim construction on\\nthe basis that the PTAB violated TQ Delta’s procedural\\nrights by relying on a new claim construction, see Appel-\\nlant’s Br. 25–29, and improperly construed the “without\\nneeding to reinitialize” limitation, see id. at 29–36. TQ\\nDelta also argues the PTAB’s finding of obviousness is not\\nsupported by substantial evidence. See id. at 36–64. We\\naddress each argument in turn.\\n I. The Administrative Procedure Act\\n A. Standard of Review and Legal Standard\\n “IPR proceedings are formal administrative adjudica-\\ntions subject to the procedural requirements of the Admin-\\nistrative Procedure Act (‘APA’).” SAS Inst., Inc. v.\\nComplementSoft, LLC., 825 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir.\\n2016), rev’d on other grounds sub nom., SAS Inst. Inc. v.\\nIancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018); see APA, 60 Stat. 237 (1946)\\n(codified in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C. (2012)). Pursuant\\nto the APA, we will set aside a PTAB decision that is “arbi-\\ntrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not\\nin accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). In the con-\\ntext of IPR proceedings, the PTAB “may not change theo-\\nries in midstream without giving respondents reasonable\\nnotice of the change and the opportunity to present argu-\\nment under the new theory.” SAS, 825 F.3d at 1351 (inter-\\nnal quotation marks and citation omitted); see 5 U.S.C.\\n§ 554(b) (“Persons entitled to notice of an agency hearing\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 5\\n\\n\\n\\nshall be timely informed of . . . the matters of fact and law\\nasserted.”). 2 The APA and due process require “notice” and\\na “fair opportunity” to be heard. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek\\nLLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015).\\n B. The PTAB Did Not Violate TQ Delta’s APA Rights\\n In its decision to institute, the PTAB, after identifying\\na passage in U.S. Patent No. 5,956,323 (“Bowie”) that “loop\\ntransmission characteristics are ‘retrieved from memory\\nand used to enable data transmission to resume quickly by\\nreducing the time needed to determine loop transmission\\ncharacteristics,’” stated that “[Dish] explains that a person\\n[having] ordinary skill in the art [(‘PHOSITA’)] would un-\\nderstand this [passage] to mean that the ‘parameters are\\nused to restore data transmission on the loop without hav-\\ning to perform the ‘handshaking’ (or initialization) process\\nagain.” J.A. 229. In its Final Written Decision, the PTAB\\ninterpreted the claim term “without needing to reinitialize”\\nas being “satisfied if any step of initialization is avoided.”\\nJ.A. 29. TQ Delta avers that the PTAB violated its proce-\\ndural rights “[b]y changing its interpretation of the ‘with-\\nout needing to reinitialize’ limitation.” Appellant’s Br. 25.\\nTQ Delta also asserts that the PTAB “unfairly denied TQ\\nDelta any opportunity to respond [to the change in its in-\\nterpretation of the term] in a meaningful way.” Id. (capi-\\ntalization modified). More specifically, TQ Delta asserts\\nthat because neither party advocated for a new claim con-\\nstruction and the PTAB sua sponte construed the “without\\nneeding to reinitialize” limitation as being “satisfied if any\\n\\n\\n 2 TQ Delta relies upon 35 U.S.C. § 554, which does\\nnot exist in Title 35 of the U.S. Code. See Appellant’s Br.\\n25. We believe that TQ Delta intends to cite to 5 U.S.C.\\n§ 554, which governs administrative procedure, and that it\\nis clear from its arguments that TQ Delta is raising a claim\\nunder the APA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 554. We, therefore,\\nconstrue this claim as an APA challenge.\\n\\f6 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nstep of initialization is avoided,” TQ Delta was denied a\\nproper chance to respond to the PTAB’s understanding of\\nthe claim term. Id. at 24. We disagree with TQ Delta.\\n The PTAB did not violate TQ Delta’s APA rights. The\\nPTAB never construed the “reinitialize” limitation in its\\nDecision to Institute IPR as TQ Delta contends, and it,\\ntherefore, did not change course by construing the term in\\nthe Final Written Decision. See id. Rather, in its Decision\\nto Institute, the PTAB summarized DISH’s arguments ad-\\ndressing how a PHOSITA would interpret the disclosures\\nin Bowie. J.A. 229. In the Final Written Decision, the\\nPTAB explained what its understanding of the limitation\\nwas in the context of the prior art. J.A. 29 (explaining that\\n“[the PTAB is] still persuaded that Bowie teaches exiting\\nlow power mode and restoring full power mode ‘without\\nneeding to reinitialize the transceiver’ because we inter-\\npret that phrase to be satisfied as long as the entire initial-\\nization process is not needed”); see also HTC Corp. v.\\nCellular Comm’cns Equip., LLC, 701 F. App’x 978, 981\\n(Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining the PTAB “engaged in claim\\nconstruction when it proceeded to determine whether [the\\nprior art] disclosed [certain] limitations” because, “[d]es-\\npite the heading under which the [PTAB]’s analysis took\\nplace, [its] ruling about the requirement of separate com-\\nponents was clearly a claim construction” by “establish[ing]\\nthe scope and boundaries of the subject matter that is pa-\\ntented” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Net-\\nword, LLC v. Centraal Corp., 242 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir.\\n2001))). Thus, the PTAB did not “change course” by con-\\nstruing the limitation in the Final Written Decision be-\\ncause it did not construe the term in its Decision to\\nInstitute.\\n Nevertheless, TQ Delta had notice of the PTAB’s un-\\nderstanding of the “reinitialization” limitation as it relates\\nto the prior art before the PTAB issued the Final Written\\nDecision. See J.A. 303–04 (arguing, by TQ Delta in its pa-\\ntent owner response, that Bowie does not disclose the\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 7\\n\\n\\n\\ndisputed limitation). During the Oral Hearing, the PTAB\\nrepeatedly asked TQ Delta about its narrow construction\\nof the term and explained that it disagreed with TQ Delta’s\\ninterpretation. See, e.g., J.A. 417 (“I’m just not understand-\\ning your argument that there’s more to avoiding reinitiali-\\nzation than storing because there’s nothing in the claim\\n– there’s nothing claimed beyond the storing of the param-\\neter and the receiving of the sync signal that would allow\\nit to avoid reinitializing when it exits from low power\\nmode”). After the Oral Hearing, TQ Delta was given the\\nopportunity to respond. See Intellectual Ventures II LLC v.\\nEricsson Inc., 686 F. App’x 900, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (ex-\\nplaining that the patent owner’s APA and due process ar-\\nguments were meritless because it was on notice of the at-\\nissue construction before the final written decision issued\\nbecause it had the “opportunity to seek a sur-reply or re-\\nhearing” and there was a “continuous focus on [the claim\\nterm] before and during oral arguments”); see also id. (ex-\\nplaining that “[t]he [PTAB] is not constrained by the par-\\nties’ proposed constructions and is free to adopt its own\\nconstruction”).\\n While TQ Delta asserts that this case is similar to SAS,\\nwhich held that, under the APA, the PTAB cannot change\\ntheories midstream by adopting a construction in its final\\nwritten decision that neither party requested or antici-\\npated, see 825 F.3d at 1351, we disagree. In SAS, the par-\\nties agreed to the construction adopted by the PTAB at\\ninstitution, but the PTAB adopted a different construction\\nin its final written decision, without either party discussing\\nor briefing this new construction. Id. at 1351. We held that\\nit was “difficult to imagine either party anticipating that\\nalready-interpreted terms were actually moving targets,\\nand it is thus unreasonable to expect that they would have\\nbriefed or argued, in the alternative, hypothetical construc-\\ntions not asserted by their opponent.” Id.\\n Here, however, TQ Delta had adequate notice of the\\nPTAB’s understanding of the disputed claim limitation, as\\n\\f8 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ndemonstrated by TQ Delta’s statements throughout the\\nproceedings. For example, in its Patent Owner Response,\\nTQ Delta argued for a narrow interpretation that avoided\\nthe reinitialization process and explained that Bowie\\n“teaches that some re-initialization does occur as part of\\ngoing from low power mode to full power mode” and, thus,\\nBowie does not disclose “without needing to reinitialize the\\ntransceiver.” J.A. 303; see J.A. 304 (explaining that “Bowie\\nteaches that initialization can continue to occur even after\\nreaching the full power mode, but before data transmission\\nbegins”). The PTAB explained that it disagreed with this\\nconstruction at the Oral Hearing, see J.A. 414 (“[Dish]\\ndoesn’t need it to be teaching that it goes through the entire\\ninitialization process.”), and the PTAB questioned TQ\\nDelta’s narrow construction, see J.A. 415 (“So how in the\\nworld do you avoid needing to reinitialize the transceiver\\nif all you’ve done is stored parameters if its true that, as\\nyou say, there’s more to reinitialization than parameter\\ndetermination?”). TQ Delta, however, responded to the\\nPTAB’s interpretation that “there could be some way that\\n[Bowie] determines the temperature’s changed short of full\\nreinitialization” with “[t]here’s no expert testimony regard-\\ning how a modem, other than by using initialization steps\\ncan determine that attenuation has changed” and “to the\\nextent there’s some suggestion that these modems have\\nsome other method without reinitialization to determine\\nthat attenuation has changed, there’s nothing in the rec-\\nord” that addresses this issue. J.A. 413–17. Clearly, TQ\\nDelta had notice of the PTAB’s understanding of the “rei-\\nnitialize” limitation prior to issuance of the Final Written\\nDecision. Because TQ Delta had notice of the claim con-\\nstruction issue and the opportunity to be heard, the PTAB\\ndid not violate the APA. See Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc.\\nv. f’real Foods, LLC, 908 F.3d 1328, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2018)\\n(distinguishing SAS because the party asserting the APA\\nviolation “had notice of the contested claim construction is-\\nsues and an opportunity to be heard”).\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 9\\n\\n\\n\\n II. Claim Construction\\n A. Standard of Review and Legal Standard\\n At the time of the Final Written Decision, the PTAB\\ngave “[a] claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in\\nlight of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”\\n37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017). A specification “includes both\\nthe written description and the claims” of the patent. In re\\nPackard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1320 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “A pa-\\ntent’s specification, together with its prosecution history,[3]\\nconstitutes intrinsic evidence to which the PTAB gives pri-\\nority when it construes claims.” Knowles Elecs. LLC v. Cir-\\nrus Logic, Inc., 883 F.3d 1358, 1361−62 (Fed. Cir. 2018).\\n“We review the PTAB’s assessment of the intrinsic evi-\\ndence de novo.” Id. at 1362.\\nB. The PTAB Properly Construed the “Without Needing to\\n Reinitialize” Limitation 4\\n The PTAB determined that the “without needing to rei-\\nnitialize” limitation, in the context of comparing it to that\\nwhich is disclosed in the prior art, is “satisfied as long as\\nthe entire initialization process is not needed.” J.A. 29.\\nMore specifically, the PTAB explained that the limitation\\n“is satisfied if any step of initialization is avoided[] and\\ndoes not require that every step of initialization be\\n\\n\\n 3 A patent’s prosecution history “consists of the com-\\nplete record of the proceedings before the [US]PTO,” which\\nprovides “evidence of how the [US]PTO and the inventor\\nunderstood the patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d\\n1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citation omitted).\\n 4 TQ Delta concedes that, “even though the [PTAB]\\nconstrued ‘without needing to reinitialize’ in the context of\\napplying that limitation to the prior art . . . and not in the\\n‘Claim Construction’ section of the Final Written Deci-\\nsion . . . review of the construction . . . is proper.” Appel-\\nlant’s Br. 29.\\n\\f10 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\navoided.” J.A. 29. TQ Delta asserts that the “[PTAB]’s con-\\nstruction conflicts with the plain meaning of the claim lan-\\nguage,” because “both parties agreed that the plain\\nmeaning of [the term] is without needing to perform any\\nstep of the initialization process.” Appellant’s Br. 30 (cap-\\nitalization modified). We disagree with TQ Delta.\\n The ’404 patent’s claims and specification teach that\\n“reinitialize” does not require that every step of initializa-\\ntion is avoided, but rather that it is satisfied if any step is\\navoided, thereby supporting the PTAB’s construction. We\\nbegin our analysis with the claim language. In re Power\\nIntegrations, Inc., 884 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018)\\n(“Claim construction must begin with the words of the\\nclaims themselves.” (internal quotation marks, brackets,\\nand citation omitted)). Independent claim 6 discloses a\\ntransceiver operable to “exit from the low power and re-\\nstore the full power mode by using the at least one param-\\neter and without needing to reinitialize the transceiver.”\\n’404 patent col. 10 ll. 41–43 (emphasis added). The express\\nlanguage of the Challenged Claims does not recite a prior\\nor first initialization and therefore uses the term “reinitial-\\nize” to mean repeating the same prior initialization process\\nover again. See, e.g., id.\\n The surrounding claims and broader specification pro-\\nvide additional support for our interpretation. See Phillips,\\n415 F.3d at 1314 (“[T]he claims themselves provide sub-\\nstantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim\\nterms.”); see also Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,\\n811 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The specification is\\nalways highly relevant to the claim construction analysis\\nand is, in fact, the single best guide to the meaning of a\\ndisputed term.” (internal quotation marks, brackets, and\\ncitation omitted)). The Challenged Claims’ use of “re” in\\n“reinitialize” refers to repeating that prior initialization\\nprocess. See Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc.,\\n239 F.3d 1225, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing a dictionary\\ndefining “the prefix ‘re-’ as ‘again, anew, over again’” and\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 11\\n\\n\\n\\nexplaining that “in common parlance, it is customary to\\nspeak of ‘circulating’ something once (e.g., an inter-office\\nmemorandum), without ‘recirculating’ it a second time”).\\nIndependent claim 1 also uses language similar to claim 6\\nand recites “stor[ing] . . . at least one parameter . . . com-\\npris[ing] at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit al-\\nlocation parameter,” and then “restor[ing] the full power\\nmode by using the at least one parameter and without\\nneeding to reinitialize the transceiver.” ’404 patent col. 10\\nll. 10–13, 16–18. The consistent use of similar language in\\nboth independent claims indicates that following the pa-\\nrameters under which the DSL transceivers operate, the\\n“without needing to reinitialize” the full initialization pro-\\ncess is a parameter determined during the transceiver’s be-\\nginning initialization. See id.; see also id. col. 3 ll. 25–30\\n(explaining that “in an already-operating installation, the\\ntime required to initialize or re-initialize the system after\\na suspension of operation in connection with power conser-\\nvation is generally unacceptable, since it is typically de-\\nsired to have the modem respond to [a] request for service\\nnearly instantaneously”). This beginning initialization is\\nrequired to establish stable data communication between\\ntransceivers and indicates that not all of the transmission\\nparameters determined during the beginning initialization\\ncan be stored and, thus, some form of initialization is nec-\\nessary to resume subsequent data transmission. See id.\\ncol. 3 ll. 7–20. The Challenged Claims, therefore, support\\nthe conclusion that “reinitialize” means initialization after\\nthe transceiver’s beginning initialization and power down\\ninto sleep mode.\\n Moreover, the specification provides an overview of the\\ntransceiver initiation process. See ’404 patent col. 3 ll. 7–\\n20. The specification explains that transceivers, at the\\ntime, performed “full . . . initialization” when waking from\\ninactivity. Id., Abstract. The specification indicates that\\nthe purpose of the invention is to avoid full initialization\\nand offer a more convenient “rapid-on capability,” id. col. 3\\n\\f12 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nl. 33, so transceiver services resume “nearly instantane-\\nously,” id. col. 3 ll. 29–30, or “within a few frames” after\\nperiods of inactivity, id. col. 6 ll. 5–6; see id. col. 3 ll. 24–33.\\nThe specification twice discusses avoiding reinitializations\\nand does not expressly require avoiding the entire initiali-\\nzation process. First, the ’404 patent explains that after a\\ntransceiver is idling in sleep mode, “[t]he full transmission\\nand reception capabilities of the transceiver are quickly re-\\nstored when needed, without requiring the full (and time-\\nconsuming) initialization.” Id., Abstract. Second, the spec-\\nification explains that the transceiver “need not repeat the\\ninitialization that was earlier required to establish the req-\\nuisite parameters . . . required for reliable communica-\\ntions.” Id. col. 8 ll. 6–12. This also refers to the full\\ninitialization process because it describes the process from\\nexiting sleep mode through waking up from sleep mode.\\nSee id. col. 8 ll. 1–12. Therefore, the “without needing to\\nreinitialize” limitation is “satisfied as long as the entire in-\\nitialization process is not needed.”\\n TQ Delta’s primary counterargument is unavailing.\\nTQ Delta asserts that “the [PTAB]’s construction improp-\\nerly reads the word [full] from the Abstract into the claims”\\nas the “claim language does not include the word ‘full.’” Ap-\\npellant’s Br. 32. Additionally, TQ Delta states that “re-\\ngardless of the import of [full] as used in the\\nAbstract . . . by omitting the word ‘full’ in the claims, it is\\nreasonable to assume that the applicant intended for the\\nclaim language to have a different scope than the language\\nfound in the Abstract.” Id. As such, TQ Delta recognizes\\nthat the specification’s use of “full” in the Abstract, ’404 pa-\\ntent, Abstract, and the phrase “the initialization that was\\nearlier required,” id. col. 8 ll. 6–7, together imply that any\\nform of initialization less than the “full” or “earlier” initial-\\nization is sufficient to achieve the ’404 patent’s purpose of\\nrapid-on capability, see Appellant’s Br. 32. This language\\nin the patent is critical to understand the meaning of the\\ndisputed limitation given the ’404 patent’s objective of\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 13\\n\\n\\n\\nproviding rapid-on capability. See ’404 patent col. 3 ll. 31–\\n33; see also Netword, 242 F.3d at 1352 (“The claims are di-\\nrected to the invention that is described in the specifica-\\ntion; they do not have meaning removed from the context\\nfrom which they arose.”). Tellingly, nothing in the specifi-\\ncation suggests that the only way to achieve rapid-on capa-\\nbilities is by avoiding the initialization process entirely.\\nSee generally ’404 patent. Thus, we do not understand the\\nclaims as being limited to only achieving rapid-on capabil-\\nities by avoiding the initialization process altogether.\\n III. Obviousness\\n A. The Relevant Prior Art\\n 1. Bowie\\n Entitled “Power Conservation for [Plain Old Telephone\\nService (‘POTS’)] and Modulated Data Transmission,” U.S.\\nPatent No. 5,956,323 (“Bowie”) discloses “a power conser-\\nvation system for modulated data communications.” Bowie\\ncol. 1 ll. 4–5. Bowie describes an ADSL technology “used to\\ntransmit wide-bandwidth modulated data over a two-wire\\nloop using high frequency carrier signals.” Id. col. 3 ll. 24–\\n25. Bowie explains that, prior to transmitting any data,\\n“signals are exchanged . . . to adapt the ADSL [transceiv-\\ners] to the electronic characteristics of the particular wire\\nloop 220” over which those ADSL transceivers communi-\\ncate. Id. col. 4 l. 64–col. 5 l. 1. When it is in low power\\nmode and ready to wake up, the transceiver wakes from\\nlow power mode and “retrieve[s] from memory” any saved\\nor stored “parameters” “to enable data transmission to re-\\nsume quickly by reducing the time needed to determine\\nloop transmission characteristics.” Id. col. 5 ll. 64–66. Fur-\\nther, Bowie explains there are some instances where ADSL\\nreceivers “may” need to “exchange handshaking[5]\\n\\n\\n 5 “Th[e] exchange of information [over a loop be-\\ntween the customer premises equipment (‘CPE’) and\\n\\f14 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ninformation to establish reliable data communication,”\\neven after the parameters are restored. Id. col. 6 ll. 36–37;\\nsee id. col. 5 l. 66 col. 6 l. 2. For example, “[h]andshaking\\ninformation may be required where . . . loop characteristics\\nhave changed due, for example, to temperature-dependent\\nchanges in loop resistance.” Id. col. 6 ll. 37–41.\\n 2. The ADSL Standard\\n In 1995, the American National Standards Institute\\n(“ANSI”) published the “Network and Customer Installa-\\ntion Interfaces – Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line\\n(ADSL) Metallic Interface,” known as ANSI T1.413-1995\\n(“the ADSL Standard”) (J.A. 1199–301). J.A. 1199. The\\nADSL Standard is the first technical standard defining the\\nrequirements for a single ADSL for interfaces between a\\ntelecommunications network and the customer installation\\nin terms of their electrical characteristics and interactions.\\nSee, e.g., J.A. 1220, 1223. 6 The ADSL Standard discloses a\\nset of requirements for transmissions between ADSL\\ntransceivers, including the initialization process that all\\nADSL transceivers must perform. J.A. 1220 (explaining\\nthat “[t]he system reference model . . . illustrates the func-\\ntional blocks required to provide ADSL service”). During\\ninitialization, the ADSL Standard mandates that\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ncentral office terminal (‘COT’) units] is often referred to as\\nhandshaking. Once handshaking is completed, transmis-\\nsion of user data may begin.” Bowie col. 5 ll. 3–5; see id.\\ncol. 4 l. 64–col. 5 l. 3.\\n 6 The parties have used “ANSI T1.413” and “the\\n1995 ADSL Standard” interchangeably because they both\\nrefer to the ADSL Standard. See Appellant’s Br. 10; Appel-\\nlee’s Br. 4. As such, we refer to the 1995 ADSL Standard\\nand ANSI T1.413 as the ADSL Standard unless otherwise\\nnoted.\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 15\\n\\n\\n\\n“transceiver initialization is required . . . to establish a\\ncommunications link.” J.A. 1301.\\n 3. Vanzieleghem\\n Entitled “Multi-Carrier Telecommunication System\\nwith Power Reduction Means,” European Patent No. 0 883\\n269 A1 (“Vanzieleghem”) (J.A. 1188–98) discloses an ADSL\\ntransmitter that operates according to the ADSL Standard.\\nJ.A. 1189. Vanzieleghem explains that “[w]hen idle data\\nare received, the power dissipated in the transmitter is re-\\nduced because the symbols are then merely derived from a\\nfew or even a single carrier (the ‘pilot tone’) instead as from\\nall the available carriers.” J.A. 1188. Vanzieleghem also\\ndiscloses that a “pilot tone,” or synchronization signal, is\\ntransmitted during low power mode for the purpose of\\n“maintain[ing] the frequency synchronization between the\\ntransmitter and the receiver.” J.A. 1192. Vanzieleghem\\ndiscloses that when the transmitter wakes up, it can re-\\nstart transmitting data faster. See J.A. 1189 (explaining\\nthat “[t]he transmission system remains thus efficient in\\nthat it allows a fast restart”).\\n B. Standard of Review and Legal Standard\\n “We review the PTAB’s factual findings for substantial\\nevidence and its legal conclusions de novo.” Redline Detec-\\ntion, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 449 (Fed.\\nCir. 2015) (citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is\\nsomething less than the weight of the evidence but more\\nthan a mere scintilla of evidence,” meaning that “[i]t is such\\nrelevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as ad-\\nequate to support a conclusion.” In re NuVasive, Inc., 842\\nF.3d 1376, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation\\nmarks and citations omitted). “If two inconsistent conclu-\\nsions may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in rec-\\nord, the PTAB’s decision to favor one conclusion over the\\nother is the epitome of a decision that must be sustained\\nupon review for substantial evidence.” Elbit Sys. of Am.,\\nLLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir.\\n\\f16 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n2018) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation\\nomitted).\\n A patent claim is invalid “if the differences between the\\nclaimed invention and the prior art are such that the\\nclaimed invention as a whole would have been obvious be-\\nfore the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a\\n[PHOSITA].” 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2012). 7 Obviousness “is a\\nquestion of law based on underlying findings of fact.” In re\\nGartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Those un-\\nderlying findings of fact include (1) “the scope and content\\nof the prior art,” (2) “differences between the prior art and\\nthe claims at issue,” (3) “the level of ordinary skill in the\\npertinent art,” and (4) the presence of objective indicia of\\nnonobviousness such “as commercial success, long felt but\\nunsolved needs, failure of others,” and unexpected results.\\nGraham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17\\n(1966); see United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50–52\\n(1966). In assessing the prior art, the PTAB also “con-\\nsider[s] whether a PHOSITA would have been motivated\\nto combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention\\nand whether there would have been a reasonable expecta-\\ntion of success in doing so.” In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.,\\n832 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation\\nmarks, brackets, and citation omitted).\\n C. Substantial Evidence Supports the PTAB’s Obvious-\\n ness Finding\\n The PTAB held that the Challenged Claims would have\\nbeen obvious over a combination of Bowie, the ADSL\\nStandard, and Vanzieleghem. J.A. 34. Specifically, the\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 Congress amended § 103 when it enacted the\\nLeahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). Pub. L. No.\\n112-29, § 3(c), 125 Stat. 284, 287 (2011). Because the ’404\\npatent has an effective filing date after March 16, 2013,\\nthe AIA applies. See id. § 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. at 293.\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 17\\n\\n\\n\\nPTAB determined that “it would have been within the level\\nof ordinary skill in the art to select a frequency for Bowie’s\\nresume signal such that Vanzieleghem’s pilot tone would\\nnot be mistaken for the resume signal.” J.A. 34. TQ Delta\\nasserts that “the [PTAB] erred in finding the Challenged\\nClaims unpatentable” because “Bowie does not teach avoid-\\ning any steps of the initialization process.” Appellant’s\\nBr. 51 (capitalization modified). 8 Regarding motivation to\\ncombine, TQ Delta argues Bowie teaches away from the\\nclaimed reinitialization limitation because “Bowie and the\\n’404 patent are fundamentally different in how they teach\\ngoing back to transmitting data in full power mode opera-\\ntion after coming out of a low power mode.” Id. at 54 (in-\\nternal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover,\\nTQ Delta asserts the prior art teaches away from the Chal-\\nlenged Claims because “using Vanzieleghem’s synchroni-\\nzation signal in combination with Bowie, as proposed by\\n[Dish], would produce an inoperative result.” Id. at 58 (in-\\nternal quotation marks omitted). TQ Delta states that the\\ncombination would be inoperative because “Van-\\nzieleghem’s pilot tone would cause Bowie to constantly\\nwake up to return to full power mode,” id. at 59 (internal\\nquotation marks and citation omitted), given that Van-\\nzieleghem’s pilot tone may have a signal pilot strength of\\n16 kilohertz (“kHz”), which may “falsely trigger the resume\\nsignal detector and cause the modem of Bowie’s system to\\nreturn to full power mode, even if no resume signal is trans-\\nmitted,” id. at 60 (internal quotation marks and citation\\nomitted). We disagree with TQ Delta.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 TQ Delta does not dispute that the prior art teaches\\nnearly every limitation of the Challenged Claims, see gen-\\nerally Appellant’s Br., and instead confines its challenge to\\narguing Bowie does not teach the “without needing to rei-\\nnitialize” limitation, see id. at 51.\\n\\f18 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Substantial evidence supports the PTAB’s determina-\\ntion that Bowie, in view of the ADSL Standard and Van-\\nzieleghem, renders obvious the Challenged Claims. First,\\nBowie teaches ways to reduce power, but does not teach\\nthat maximum power reduction is its intended purpose.\\nSee Bowie col. 1 ll. 26–28 (explaining that “[t]he use of\\nPOTS-compatible transmission frequencies severely limits\\nthe maximum information carrying capacity of the wire\\nloop”). Bowie, however, explicitly recognizes the need for\\nsome circuitry to remain on during low power mode to re-\\nceive signals. See id. col. 5 ll. 28–30 (“Circuitry 115 to de-\\ntect the resume signal must remain capable of signal\\ndetection during low power operation.”). For example,\\nBowie’s specification demonstrates that in some embodi-\\nments, its transceiver stores parameters before entering\\ninto a low power mode. Id. col. 4 l. 64–col. 5 l. 4 (“Prior to\\ninitiating transport of modulated data over the loop 220,\\nsignals are exchanged over the loop 220 between the COT\\nunit 232 and the CPE unit 242 to adapt the ADSL\\nunits . . . . This exchange of information is often referred\\nto as handshaking.”).\\n Second, while Bowie does not provide a list of the types\\nof parameters it stores, it does specify that the parameters\\nstored are determined and exchanged during initialization.\\nId. col. 5 ll. 17–19 (“Upon receipt of the shut-down signal,\\nthe COT unit 232 optionally stores in memory 117 charac-\\nteristics the of the loop 220 that were determined by CPE\\nto COT handshaking.”). These include bit allocation pa-\\nrameters and fine gain parameters, which the ’404 patent\\nuses for the same process. J.A. 565 (explaining, by Dish’s\\nexpert, that “the 1995 ADSL Standard explicitly discloses\\na ‘fine gain parameter’ and a ‘bit allocation parameter’” and\\nthat “these [fine gain parameter and bit allocation param-\\neters] are part of the ‘loop loss characteristics’ already dis-\\nclosed in Bowie as being stored during the unit’s 232, 242\\nlow power mode”). It would have, therefore, been obvious\\nto a PHOSITA for Bowie’s system to store bit allocation\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 19\\n\\n\\n\\nparameters and fine gain parameters since those are ex-\\nchanged during initialization as taught by the ADSL\\nStandard. See J.A. 565–66 (testimony, by Dish’s expert,\\nthat “Bowie would have been operating according to the\\n1995 ADSL Standard, and a [PHOSITA] would have looked\\nto that [s]tandard for guidance”), 571 (Dish’s expert ex-\\nplaining that Bowie’s “parameters are used to restore data\\ntransmission on the loop without having to perform the\\n‘handshaking’ (or initialization) process again”).\\n Third, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to em-\\nploy Vanzieleghem’s synchronization signal, or pilot tone,\\nin combination with Bowie. “[A] reference teaches away\\nfrom a combination when using it in that combination\\nwould produce an inoperative result.” In re ICON Health\\n& Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007). It is\\ntrue that Bowie discloses that “[t]he resume signal may be\\nan [alternating current (‘AC’)] signal at a frequency above\\nvoiceband, such as a 16 kHz AC signal,” Bowie col. 2 ll. 27–\\n28, which is the same frequency that TQ Delta asserts Van-\\nzieleghem’s pilot tone emits and would cause a false trigger\\nin Bowie, see Appellant’s Br. 60. However, Bowie supports\\nthe PTAB’s determination, when it later states that “[t]he\\nresume signal may be an AC signal greater than 4 kHz or\\nmay be a multi-tone AC signal.” Id. col. 2 ll. 44–46 (empha-\\nses added). Bowie, thus, does not require its resume signal\\nto be set to receive a 16 kHz AC signal, such that a\\nPHOSITA could employ Bowie’s resume signal at a differ-\\nent frequency without rendering Bowie inoperable. See\\nBowie col. 2 ll. 44–46. Therefore, the combination of prior\\nart renders obvious the Challenged Claims.\\n TQ Delta’s primary counterargument is unpersuasive.\\nTQ Delta argues that “[t]he fact that Bowie may perform\\n‘additional handshaking’ after returning to its full power\\nmode does not change the fact that . . . Bowie’s ADSL unit\\nalways re-determines loop transmission characteristics,\\ni.e., performs handshaking or initialization, before return-\\ning to full power mode.” Appellant’s Br. 47 (third emphasis\\n\\f20 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nadded). However, Bowie discloses that reinitialization is\\nneeded in some, but not all, instances. See Bowie, Abstract;\\nsee id. col. 5 ll. 20–22 (“Likewise, upon sending the shut-\\ndown signal, the CPE unit . . . may also optionally store the\\nloop characteristics that it obtained through CPE to COT\\nhandshaking.”). Bowie explains that “[h]andshaking infor-\\nmation may be required where, for example, loop charac-\\nteristics have changed due, for example, to temperature-\\ndependent changes in loop resistance.” Id. col. 6 ll. 38–41\\n(emphasis added). This, however, does not indicate that all\\nsteps of initialization are required. See id. During the IPR\\nproceedings TQ Delta conceded that “Bowie specifically\\nteaches that some re-initialization does occur as part of go-\\ning from low power mode to full power mode.” J.A. 303. TQ\\nDelta’s expert similarly explained that “Bowie . . . still\\nha[s] to go through the process of . . . re-determining loop\\ncharacteristics upon coming out of low power mode in order\\nto accomplish Bowie’s goal of reliable data communica-\\ntions.” J.A. 4309. Because the reinitialize limitation is sat-\\nisfied if any step of initialization is avoided, TQ Delta’s\\ninterpretation of Bowie satisfies the limitation as inter-\\npreted by the PTAB. Thus, given TQ Delta and its expert’s\\nadmission that Bowie discloses some steps during the rei-\\nnitialization process, and prior to initialization, see\\nJ.A. 303, 4309, we find no merit in its attempt on appeal to\\nargue the opposite.\\n CONCLUSION\\n We have considered TQ Delta’s remaining arguments\\nand find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Final Writ-\\nten Decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Pa-\\ntent Trial and Appeal Board is\\n AFFIRMED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4415234/\", \"author_raw\": \"WALLACH, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"NEWMAN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"LINN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"WALLACH"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637981/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: TQ DELTA, LLC, Appellant v. DISH NETWORK LLC, Appellee\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-10\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n TQ DELTA, LLC,\n Appellant\n\n v.\n\n DISH NETWORK LLC,\n Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2018-1799\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-\n01470.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: July 10, 2019\n ______________________\n\n RAJENDRA A. CHIPLUNKAR, McAndrews, Held & Malloy,\nLtd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented\nby PETER J. MCANDREWS, DAVID Z. PETTY.\n\n HEIDI LYN KEEFE, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued\nfor appellee. Also represented by JENNIFER VOLK, Reston,\nVA; STEPHEN R. SMITH, Washington, DC.\n ______________________\n\n Before NEWMAN, LINN, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.\n\f2 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\n\n\n\n\nWALLACH, Circuit Judge.\n Appellee DISH Network (“Dish”) sought inter partes\nreview (“IPR”) of claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 (“the Challenged\nClaims”) of Appellant TQ Delta, LLC’s (“TQ Delta”) U.S.\nPatent No. 8,611,404 (“the ’404 patent”). The U.S. Patent\nand Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board\n(“PTAB”) issued a final written decision finding, inter alia,\nthat the Challenged Claims are unpatentable as obvious.\nSee DISH Network LLC. v. TQ Delta, LLC, No. IPR2016-\n01470 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2018) (J.A. 1–38).\n TQ Delta appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28\nU.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) (2012). We affirm.\n BACKGROUND\n Entitled “Multicarrier Transmission System with Low\nPower Sleep Mode and Rapid-On Capability,” the ’404 pa-\ntent relates to the field of “multicarrier transmission sys-\ntems.” ’404 patent col. 1 l. 31. “Multicarrier transmission\nsystems provide high speed data links between communi-\ncation points[ and have recently been used] . . . for commu-\nnications over the local subscriber loop that connects a\ntelephone service subscriber to a central telephone of-\nfice. . . .” 1 Id. col. 1 ll. 37–41. The ’404 patent generally\ndescribes a method for “establishing a power management\nsleep state in a multicarrier system” and efficiently waking\nup a transmission system utilized on hardware, such as a\ncomputer, from sleep mode. Id. col. 1 ll. 32–33; see id., Ab-\nstract. The process involved when the transmission system\n\n\n 1 The ’404 patent explains that the recent applica-\ntion of these systems described in the patent “are com-\nmonly referred to as ‘xDSL’ systems, where the ‘x’ specifies\na particular variant of DSL (digital subscriber loop) com-\nmunications, e.g., ADSL (asynchronous digital subscriber\nloop), HDSL (High-Speed Digital Subscriber Loop), etc.”\n’404 patent col. 1 ll. 42–47.\n\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 3\n\n\n\nis first powered up prior to sleep mode is referred to as\n“full . . . initialization.” Id., Abstract. Specifically, the ’404\npatent describes the invention “in the context of an ADSL\nsystem having a first transceiver located at the site of a\ncustomer’s premises,” referred to as the “CPE transceiver,”\nas well as “a second transceiver located at a local central\ntelephone office” referred to as the “CO transceiver.” Id.\ncol. 3 ll. 63–67 (internal quotation marks omitted). The\n’404 patent explains that “since the CPE transceiver and\nCO transceiver are very similar, the invention [is] ex-\nplained in connection with a detailed illustration of the\nCPE transceiver only.” Id. col. 4 ll. 11–13. Generally, in\nDSL systems, “a pair of transceivers communicate with\n[each] other by dividing the overall bandwidth of the chan-\nnel interconnecting the subscriber and the central office\ninto a large number of separate subchannels, each of lim-\nited bandwidth, operating in parallel with each other.” Id.\ncol. 1 ll. 48–52.\n Independent claim 6 is illustrative and recites:\n An apparatus comprising a transceiver operable to:\n receive, in a full power mode, a plurality of\n superframes, wherein the superframe com-\n prises a plurality of data frames followed\n by a synchronization frame;\n receive, in the full power mode, a synchro-\n nization signal;\n transmit a message to enter into a low\n power mode;\n store, in a low power mode, at least one pa-\n rameter associated with the full power\n mode operation wherein the at least one\n parameter comprises at least one of a fine\n gain parameter and a bit allocation param-\n eter;\n\f4 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\n\n\n\n\n receive, in the low power mode, a synchro-\n nization signal; and\n exit from the low power and restore the full\n power mode by using the at least one pa-\n rameter and without needing to reinitialize\n the transceiver.\nId. col. 10 ll. 29–43 (emphasis added).\n DISCUSSION\n TQ Delta challenges the PTAB’s claim construction on\nthe basis that the PTAB violated TQ Delta’s procedural\nrights by relying on a new claim construction, see Appel-\nlant’s Br. 25–29, and improperly construed the “without\nneeding to reinitialize” limitation, see id. at 29–36. TQ\nDelta also argues the PTAB’s finding of obviousness is not\nsupported by substantial evidence. See id. at 36–64. We\naddress each argument in turn.\n I. The Administrative Procedure Act\n A. Standard of Review and Legal Standard\n “IPR proceedings are formal administrative adjudica-\ntions subject to the procedural requirements of the Admin-\nistrative Procedure Act (‘APA’).” SAS Inst., Inc. v.\nComplementSoft, LLC., 825 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir.\n2016), rev’d on other grounds sub nom., SAS Inst. Inc. v.\nIancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018); see APA, 60 Stat. 237 (1946)\n(codified in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C. (2012)). Pursuant\nto the APA, we will set aside a PTAB decision that is “arbi-\ntrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not\nin accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). In the con-\ntext of IPR proceedings, the PTAB “may not change theo-\nries in midstream without giving respondents reasonable\nnotice of the change and the opportunity to present argu-\nment under the new theory.” SAS, 825 F.3d at 1351 (inter-\nnal quotation marks and citation omitted); see 5 U.S.C.\n§ 554(b) (“Persons entitled to notice of an agency hearing\n\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 5\n\n\n\nshall be timely informed of . . . the matters of fact and law\nasserted.”). 2 The APA and due process require “notice” and\na “fair opportunity” to be heard. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek\nLLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015).\n B. The PTAB Did Not Violate TQ Delta’s APA Rights\n In its decision to institute, the PTAB, after identifying\na passage in U.S. Patent No. 5,956,323 (“Bowie”) that “loop\ntransmission characteristics are ‘retrieved from memory\nand used to enable data transmission to resume quickly by\nreducing the time needed to determine loop transmission\ncharacteristics,’” stated that “[Dish] explains that a person\n[having] ordinary skill in the art [(‘PHOSITA’)] would un-\nderstand this [passage] to mean that the ‘parameters are\nused to restore data transmission on the loop without hav-\ning to perform the ‘handshaking’ (or initialization) process\nagain.” J.A. 229. In its Final Written Decision, the PTAB\ninterpreted the claim term “without needing to reinitialize”\nas being “satisfied if any step of initialization is avoided.”\nJ.A. 29. TQ Delta avers that the PTAB violated its proce-\ndural rights “[b]y changing its interpretation of the ‘with-\nout needing to reinitialize’ limitation.” Appellant’s Br. 25.\nTQ Delta also asserts that the PTAB “unfairly denied TQ\nDelta any opportunity to respond [to the change in its in-\nterpretation of the term] in a meaningful way.” Id. (capi-\ntalization modified). More specifically, TQ Delta asserts\nthat because neither party advocated for a new claim con-\nstruction and the PTAB sua sponte construed the “without\nneeding to reinitialize” limitation as being “satisfied if any\n\n\n 2 TQ Delta relies upon 35 U.S.C. § 554, which does\nnot exist in Title 35 of the U.S. Code. See Appellant’s Br.\n25. We believe that TQ Delta intends to cite to 5 U.S.C.\n§ 554, which governs administrative procedure, and that it\nis clear from its arguments that TQ Delta is raising a claim\nunder the APA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 554. We, therefore,\nconstrue this claim as an APA challenge.\n\f6 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\n\n\n\n\nstep of initialization is avoided,” TQ Delta was denied a\nproper chance to respond to the PTAB’s understanding of\nthe claim term. Id. at 24. We disagree with TQ Delta.\n The PTAB did not violate TQ Delta’s APA rights. The\nPTAB never construed the “reinitialize” limitation in its\nDecision to Institute IPR as TQ Delta contends, and it,\ntherefore, did not change course by construing the term in\nthe Final Written Decision. See id. Rather, in its Decision\nto Institute, the PTAB summarized DISH’s arguments ad-\ndressing how a PHOSITA would interpret the disclosures\nin Bowie. J.A. 229. In the Final Written Decision, the\nPTAB explained what its understanding of the limitation\nwas in the context of the prior art. J.A. 29 (explaining that\n“[the PTAB is] still persuaded that Bowie teaches exiting\nlow power mode and restoring full power mode ‘without\nneeding to reinitialize the transceiver’ because we inter-\npret that phrase to be satisfied as long as the entire initial-\nization process is not needed”); see also HTC Corp. v.\nCellular Comm’cns Equip., LLC, 701 F. App’x 978, 981\n(Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining the PTAB “engaged in claim\nconstruction when it proceeded to determine whether [the\nprior art] disclosed [certain] limitations” because, “[d]es-\npite the heading under which the [PTAB]’s analysis took\nplace, [its] ruling about the requirement of separate com-\nponents was clearly a claim construction” by “establish[ing]\nthe scope and boundaries of the subject matter that is pa-\ntented” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Net-\nword, LLC v. Centraal Corp., 242 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir.\n2001))). Thus, the PTAB did not “change course” by con-\nstruing the limitation in the Final Written Decision be-\ncause it did not construe the term in its Decision to\nInstitute.\n Nevertheless, TQ Delta had notice of the PTAB’s un-\nderstanding of the “reinitialization” limitation as it relates\nto the prior art before the PTAB issued the Final Written\nDecision. See J.A. 303–04 (arguing, by TQ Delta in its pa-\ntent owner response, that Bowie does not disclose the\n\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 7\n\n\n\ndisputed limitation). During the Oral Hearing, the PTAB\nrepeatedly asked TQ Delta about its narrow construction\nof the term and explained that it disagreed with TQ Delta’s\ninterpretation. See, e.g., J.A. 417 (“I’m just not understand-\ning your argument that there’s more to avoiding reinitiali-\nzation than storing because there’s nothing in the claim\n– there’s nothing claimed beyond the storing of the param-\neter and the receiving of the sync signal that would allow\nit to avoid reinitializing when it exits from low power\nmode”). After the Oral Hearing, TQ Delta was given the\nopportunity to respond. See Intellectual Ventures II LLC v.\nEricsson Inc., 686 F. App’x 900, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (ex-\nplaining that the patent owner’s APA and due process ar-\nguments were meritless because it was on notice of the at-\nissue construction before the final written decision issued\nbecause it had the “opportunity to seek a sur-reply or re-\nhearing” and there was a “continuous focus on [the claim\nterm] before and during oral arguments”); see also id. (ex-\nplaining that “[t]he [PTAB] is not constrained by the par-\nties’ proposed constructions and is free to adopt its own\nconstruction”).\n While TQ Delta asserts that this case is similar to SAS,\nwhich held that, under the APA, the PTAB cannot change\ntheories midstream by adopting a construction in its final\nwritten decision that neither party requested or antici-\npated, see 825 F.3d at 1351, we disagree. In SAS, the par-\nties agreed to the construction adopted by the PTAB at\ninstitution, but the PTAB adopted a different construction\nin its final written decision, without either party discussing\nor briefing this new construction. Id. at 1351. We held that\nit was “difficult to imagine either party anticipating that\nalready-interpreted terms were actually moving targets,\nand it is thus unreasonable to expect that they would have\nbriefed or argued, in the alternative, hypothetical construc-\ntions not asserted by their opponent.” Id.\n Here, however, TQ Delta had adequate notice of the\nPTAB’s understanding of the disputed claim limitation, as\n\f8 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\n\n\n\n\ndemonstrated by TQ Delta’s statements throughout the\nproceedings. For example, in its Patent Owner Response,\nTQ Delta argued for a narrow interpretation that avoided\nthe reinitialization process and explained that Bowie\n“teaches that some re-initialization does occur as part of\ngoing from low power mode to full power mode” and, thus,\nBowie does not disclose “without needing to reinitialize the\ntransceiver.” J.A. 303; see J.A. 304 (explaining that “Bowie\nteaches that initialization can continue to occur even after\nreaching the full power mode, but before data transmission\nbegins”). The PTAB explained that it disagreed with this\nconstruction at the Oral Hearing, see J.A. 414 (“[Dish]\ndoesn’t need it to be teaching that it goes through the entire\ninitialization process.”), and the PTAB questioned TQ\nDelta’s narrow construction, see J.A. 415 (“So how in the\nworld do you avoid needing to reinitialize the transceiver\nif all you’ve done is stored parameters if its true that, as\nyou say, there’s more to reinitialization than parameter\ndetermination?”). TQ Delta, however, responded to the\nPTAB’s interpretation that “there could be some way that\n[Bowie] determines the temperature’s changed short of full\nreinitialization” with “[t]here’s no expert testimony regard-\ning how a modem, other than by using initialization steps\ncan determine that attenuation has changed” and “to the\nextent there’s some suggestion that these modems have\nsome other method without reinitialization to determine\nthat attenuation has changed, there’s nothing in the rec-\nord” that addresses this issue. J.A. 413–17. Clearly, TQ\nDelta had notice of the PTAB’s understanding of the “rei-\nnitialize” limitation prior to issuance of the Final Written\nDecision. Because TQ Delta had notice of the claim con-\nstruction issue and the opportunity to be heard, the PTAB\ndid not violate the APA. See Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc.\nv. f’real Foods, LLC, 908 F.3d 1328, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2018)\n(distinguishing SAS because the party asserting the APA\nviolation “had notice of the contested claim construction is-\nsues and an opportunity to be heard”).\n\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 9\n\n\n\n II. Claim Construction\n A. Standard of Review and Legal Standard\n At the time of the Final Written Decision, the PTAB\ngave “[a] claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in\nlight of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”\n37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017). A specification “includes both\nthe written description and the claims” of the patent. In re\nPackard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1320 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “A pa-\ntent’s specification, together with its prosecution history,[3]\nconstitutes intrinsic evidence to which the PTAB gives pri-\nority when it construes claims.” Knowles Elecs. LLC v. Cir-\nrus Logic, Inc., 883 F.3d 1358, 1361−62 (Fed. Cir. 2018).\n“We review the PTAB’s assessment of the intrinsic evi-\ndence de novo.” Id. at 1362.\nB. The PTAB Properly Construed the “Without Needing to\n Reinitialize” Limitation 4\n The PTAB determined that the “without needing to rei-\nnitialize” limitation, in the context of comparing it to that\nwhich is disclosed in the prior art, is “satisfied as long as\nthe entire initialization process is not needed.” J.A. 29.\nMore specifically, the PTAB explained that the limitation\n“is satisfied if any step of initialization is avoided[] and\ndoes not require that every step of initialization be\n\n\n 3 A patent’s prosecution history “consists of the com-\nplete record of the proceedings before the [US]PTO,” which\nprovides “evidence of how the [US]PTO and the inventor\nunderstood the patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d\n1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citation omitted).\n 4 TQ Delta concedes that, “even though the [PTAB]\nconstrued ‘without needing to reinitialize’ in the context of\napplying that limitation to the prior art . . . and not in the\n‘Claim Construction’ section of the Final Written Deci-\nsion . . . review of the construction . . . is proper.” Appel-\nlant’s Br. 29.\n\f10 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\n\n\n\n\navoided.” J.A. 29. TQ Delta asserts that the “[PTAB]’s con-\nstruction conflicts with the plain meaning of the claim lan-\nguage,” because “both parties agreed that the plain\nmeaning of [the term] is without needing to perform any\nstep of the initialization process.” Appellant’s Br. 30 (cap-\nitalization modified). We disagree with TQ Delta.\n The ’404 patent’s claims and specification teach that\n“reinitialize” does not require that every step of initializa-\ntion is avoided, but rather that it is satisfied if any step is\navoided, thereby supporting the PTAB’s construction. We\nbegin our analysis with the claim language. In re Power\nIntegrations, Inc., 884 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018)\n(“Claim construction must begin with the words of the\nclaims themselves.” (internal quotation marks, brackets,\nand citation omitted)). Independent claim 6 discloses a\ntransceiver operable to “exit from the low power and re-\nstore the full power mode by using the at least one param-\neter and without needing to reinitialize the transceiver.”\n’404 patent col. 10 ll. 41–43 (emphasis added). The express\nlanguage of the Challenged Claims does not recite a prior\nor first initialization and therefore uses the term “reinitial-\nize” to mean repeating the same prior initialization process\nover again. See, e.g., id.\n The surrounding claims and broader specification pro-\nvide additional support for our interpretation. See Phillips,\n415 F.3d at 1314 (“[T]he claims themselves provide sub-\nstantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim\nterms.”); see also Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,\n811 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The specification is\nalways highly relevant to the claim construction analysis\nand is, in fact, the single best guide to the meaning of a\ndisputed term.” (internal quotation marks, brackets, and\ncitation omitted)). The Challenged Claims’ use of “re” in\n“reinitialize” refers to repeating that prior initialization\nprocess. See Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc.,\n239 F.3d 1225, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing a dictionary\ndefining “the prefix ‘re-’ as ‘again, anew, over again’” and\n\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 11\n\n\n\nexplaining that “in common parlance, it is customary to\nspeak of ‘circulating’ something once (e.g., an inter-office\nmemorandum), without ‘recirculating’ it a second time”).\nIndependent claim 1 also uses language similar to claim 6\nand recites “stor[ing] . . . at least one parameter . . . com-\npris[ing] at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit al-\nlocation parameter,” and then “restor[ing] the full power\nmode by using the at least one parameter and without\nneeding to reinitialize the transceiver.” ’404 patent col. 10\nll. 10–13, 16–18. The consistent use of similar language in\nboth independent claims indicates that following the pa-\nrameters under which the DSL transceivers operate, the\n“without needing to reinitialize” the full initialization pro-\ncess is a parameter determined during the transceiver’s be-\nginning initialization. See id.; see also id. col. 3 ll. 25–30\n(explaining that “in an already-operating installation, the\ntime required to initialize or re-initialize the system after\na suspension of operation in connection with power conser-\nvation is generally unacceptable, since it is typically de-\nsired to have the modem respond to [a] request for service\nnearly instantaneously”). This beginning initialization is\nrequired to establish stable data communication between\ntransceivers and indicates that not all of the transmission\nparameters determined during the beginning initialization\ncan be stored and, thus, some form of initialization is nec-\nessary to resume subsequent data transmission. See id.\ncol. 3 ll. 7–20. The Challenged Claims, therefore, support\nthe conclusion that “reinitialize” means initialization after\nthe transceiver’s beginning initialization and power down\ninto sleep mode.\n Moreover, the specification provides an overview of the\ntransceiver initiation process. See ’404 patent col. 3 ll. 7–\n20. The specification explains that transceivers, at the\ntime, performed “full . . . initialization” when waking from\ninactivity. Id., Abstract. The specification indicates that\nthe purpose of the invention is to avoid full initialization\nand offer a more convenient “rapid-on capability,” id. col. 3\n\f12 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\n\n\n\n\nl. 33, so transceiver services resume “nearly instantane-\nously,” id. col. 3 ll. 29–30, or “within a few frames” after\nperiods of inactivity, id. col. 6 ll. 5–6; see id. col. 3 ll. 24–33.\nThe specification twice discusses avoiding reinitializations\nand does not expressly require avoiding the entire initiali-\nzation process. First, the ’404 patent explains that after a\ntransceiver is idling in sleep mode, “[t]he full transmission\nand reception capabilities of the transceiver are quickly re-\nstored when needed, without requiring the full (and time-\nconsuming) initialization.” Id., Abstract. Second, the spec-\nification explains that the transceiver “need not repeat the\ninitialization that was earlier required to establish the req-\nuisite parameters . . . required for reliable communica-\ntions.” Id. col. 8 ll. 6–12. This also refers to the full\ninitialization process because it describes the process from\nexiting sleep mode through waking up from sleep mode.\nSee id. col. 8 ll. 1–12. Therefore, the “without needing to\nreinitialize” limitation is “satisfied as long as the entire in-\nitialization process is not needed.”\n TQ Delta’s primary counterargument is unavailing.\nTQ Delta asserts that “the [PTAB]’s construction improp-\nerly reads the word [full] from the Abstract into the claims”\nas the “claim language does not include the word ‘full.’” Ap-\npellant’s Br. 32. Additionally, TQ Delta states that “re-\ngardless of the import of [full] as used in the\nAbstract . . . by omitting the word ‘full’ in the claims, it is\nreasonable to assume that the applicant intended for the\nclaim language to have a different scope than the language\nfound in the Abstract.” Id. As such, TQ Delta recognizes\nthat the specification’s use of “full” in the Abstract, ’404 pa-\ntent, Abstract, and the phrase “the initialization that was\nearlier required,” id. col. 8 ll. 6–7, together imply that any\nform of initialization less than the “full” or “earlier” initial-\nization is sufficient to achieve the ’404 patent’s purpose of\nrapid-on capability, see Appellant’s Br. 32. This language\nin the patent is critical to understand the meaning of the\ndisputed limitation given the ’404 patent’s objective of\n\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 13\n\n\n\nproviding rapid-on capability. See ’404 patent col. 3 ll. 31–\n33; see also Netword, 242 F.3d at 1352 (“The claims are di-\nrected to the invention that is described in the specifica-\ntion; they do not have meaning removed from the context\nfrom which they arose.”). Tellingly, nothing in the specifi-\ncation suggests that the only way to achieve rapid-on capa-\nbilities is by avoiding the initialization process entirely.\nSee generally ’404 patent. Thus, we do not understand the\nclaims as being limited to only achieving rapid-on capabil-\nities by avoiding the initialization process altogether.\n III. Obviousness\n A. The Relevant Prior Art\n 1. Bowie\n Entitled “Power Conservation for [Plain Old Telephone\nService (‘POTS’)] and Modulated Data Transmission,” U.S.\nPatent No. 5,956,323 (“Bowie”) discloses “a power conser-\nvation system for modulated data communications.” Bowie\ncol. 1 ll. 4–5. Bowie describes an ADSL technology “used to\ntransmit wide-bandwidth modulated data over a two-wire\nloop using high frequency carrier signals.” Id. col. 3 ll. 24–\n25. Bowie explains that, prior to transmitting any data,\n“signals are exchanged . . . to adapt the ADSL [transceiv-\ners] to the electronic characteristics of the particular wire\nloop 220” over which those ADSL transceivers communi-\ncate. Id. col. 4 l. 64–col. 5 l. 1. When it is in low power\nmode and ready to wake up, the transceiver wakes from\nlow power mode and “retrieve[s] from memory” any saved\nor stored “parameters” “to enable data transmission to re-\nsume quickly by reducing the time needed to determine\nloop transmission characteristics.” Id. col. 5 ll. 64–66. Fur-\nther, Bowie explains there are some instances where ADSL\nreceivers “may” need to “exchange handshaking[5]\n\n\n 5 “Th[e] exchange of information [over a loop be-\ntween the customer premises equipment (‘CPE’) and\n\f14 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\n\n\n\n\ninformation to establish reliable data communication,”\neven after the parameters are restored. Id. col. 6 ll. 36–37;\nsee id. col. 5 l. 66 col. 6 l. 2. For example, “[h]andshaking\ninformation may be required where . . . loop characteristics\nhave changed due, for example, to temperature-dependent\nchanges in loop resistance.” Id. col. 6 ll. 37–41.\n 2. The ADSL Standard\n In 1995, the American National Standards Institute\n(“ANSI”) published the “Network and Customer Installa-\ntion Interfaces – Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line\n(ADSL) Metallic Interface,” known as ANSI T1.413-1995\n(“the ADSL Standard”) (J.A. 1199–301). J.A. 1199. The\nADSL Standard is the first technical standard defining the\nrequirements for a single ADSL for interfaces between a\ntelecommunications network and the customer installation\nin terms of their electrical characteristics and interactions.\nSee, e.g., J.A. 1220, 1223. 6 The ADSL Standard discloses a\nset of requirements for transmissions between ADSL\ntransceivers, including the initialization process that all\nADSL transceivers must perform. J.A. 1220 (explaining\nthat “[t]he system reference model . . . illustrates the func-\ntional blocks required to provide ADSL service”). During\ninitialization, the ADSL Standard mandates that\n\n\n\n\ncentral office terminal (‘COT’) units] is often referred to as\nhandshaking. Once handshaking is completed, transmis-\nsion of user data may begin.” Bowie col. 5 ll. 3–5; see id.\ncol. 4 l. 64–col. 5 l. 3.\n 6 The parties have used “ANSI T1.413” and “the\n1995 ADSL Standard” interchangeably because they both\nrefer to the ADSL Standard. See Appellant’s Br. 10; Appel-\nlee’s Br. 4. As such, we refer to the 1995 ADSL Standard\nand ANSI T1.413 as the ADSL Standard unless otherwise\nnoted.\n\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 15\n\n\n\n“transceiver initialization is required . . . to establish a\ncommunications link.” J.A. 1301.\n 3. Vanzieleghem\n Entitled “Multi-Carrier Telecommunication System\nwith Power Reduction Means,” European Patent No. 0 883\n269 A1 (“Vanzieleghem”) (J.A. 1188–98) discloses an ADSL\ntransmitter that operates according to the ADSL Standard.\nJ.A. 1189. Vanzieleghem explains that “[w]hen idle data\nare received, the power dissipated in the transmitter is re-\nduced because the symbols are then merely derived from a\nfew or even a single carrier (the ‘pilot tone’) instead as from\nall the available carriers.” J.A. 1188. Vanzieleghem also\ndiscloses that a “pilot tone,” or synchronization signal, is\ntransmitted during low power mode for the purpose of\n“maintain[ing] the frequency synchronization between the\ntransmitter and the receiver.” J.A. 1192. Vanzieleghem\ndiscloses that when the transmitter wakes up, it can re-\nstart transmitting data faster. See J.A. 1189 (explaining\nthat “[t]he transmission system remains thus efficient in\nthat it allows a fast restart”).\n B. Standard of Review and Legal Standard\n “We review the PTAB’s factual findings for substantial\nevidence and its legal conclusions de novo.” Redline Detec-\ntion, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 449 (Fed.\nCir. 2015) (citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is\nsomething less than the weight of the evidence but more\nthan a mere scintilla of evidence,” meaning that “[i]t is such\nrelevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as ad-\nequate to support a conclusion.” In re NuVasive, Inc., 842\nF.3d 1376, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation\nmarks and citations omitted). “If two inconsistent conclu-\nsions may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in rec-\nord, the PTAB’s decision to favor one conclusion over the\nother is the epitome of a decision that must be sustained\nupon review for substantial evidence.” Elbit Sys. of Am.,\nLLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir.\n\f16 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\n\n\n\n\n2018) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation\nomitted).\n A patent claim is invalid “if the differences between the\nclaimed invention and the prior art are such that the\nclaimed invention as a whole would have been obvious be-\nfore the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a\n[PHOSITA].” 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2012). 7 Obviousness “is a\nquestion of law based on underlying findings of fact.” In re\nGartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Those un-\nderlying findings of fact include (1) “the scope and content\nof the prior art,” (2) “differences between the prior art and\nthe claims at issue,” (3) “the level of ordinary skill in the\npertinent art,” and (4) the presence of objective indicia of\nnonobviousness such “as commercial success, long felt but\nunsolved needs, failure of others,” and unexpected results.\nGraham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17\n(1966); see United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50–52\n(1966). In assessing the prior art, the PTAB also “con-\nsider[s] whether a PHOSITA would have been motivated\nto combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention\nand whether there would have been a reasonable expecta-\ntion of success in doing so.” In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.,\n832 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation\nmarks, brackets, and citation omitted).\n C. Substantial Evidence Supports the PTAB’s Obvious-\n ness Finding\n The PTAB held that the Challenged Claims would have\nbeen obvious over a combination of Bowie, the ADSL\nStandard, and Vanzieleghem. J.A. 34. Specifically, the\n\n\n\n 7 Congress amended § 103 when it enacted the\nLeahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). Pub. L. No.\n112-29, § 3(c), 125 Stat. 284, 287 (2011). Because the ’404\npatent has an effective filing date after March 16, 2013,\nthe AIA applies. See id. § 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. at 293.\n\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 17\n\n\n\nPTAB determined that “it would have been within the level\nof ordinary skill in the art to select a frequency for Bowie’s\nresume signal such that Vanzieleghem’s pilot tone would\nnot be mistaken for the resume signal.” J.A. 34. TQ Delta\nasserts that “the [PTAB] erred in finding the Challenged\nClaims unpatentable” because “Bowie does not teach avoid-\ning any steps of the initialization process.” Appellant’s\nBr. 51 (capitalization modified). 8 Regarding motivation to\ncombine, TQ Delta argues Bowie teaches away from the\nclaimed reinitialization limitation because “Bowie and the\n’404 patent are fundamentally different in how they teach\ngoing back to transmitting data in full power mode opera-\ntion after coming out of a low power mode.” Id. at 54 (in-\nternal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover,\nTQ Delta asserts the prior art teaches away from the Chal-\nlenged Claims because “using Vanzieleghem’s synchroni-\nzation signal in combination with Bowie, as proposed by\n[Dish], would produce an inoperative result.” Id. at 58 (in-\nternal quotation marks omitted). TQ Delta states that the\ncombination would be inoperative because “Van-\nzieleghem’s pilot tone would cause Bowie to constantly\nwake up to return to full power mode,” id. at 59 (internal\nquotation marks and citation omitted), given that Van-\nzieleghem’s pilot tone may have a signal pilot strength of\n16 kilohertz (“kHz”), which may “falsely trigger the resume\nsignal detector and cause the modem of Bowie’s system to\nreturn to full power mode, even if no resume signal is trans-\nmitted,” id. at 60 (internal quotation marks and citation\nomitted). We disagree with TQ Delta.\n\n\n\n\n 8 TQ Delta does not dispute that the prior art teaches\nnearly every limitation of the Challenged Claims, see gen-\nerally Appellant’s Br., and instead confines its challenge to\narguing Bowie does not teach the “without needing to rei-\nnitialize” limitation, see id. at 51.\n\f18 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\n\n\n\n\n Substantial evidence supports the PTAB’s determina-\ntion that Bowie, in view of the ADSL Standard and Van-\nzieleghem, renders obvious the Challenged Claims. First,\nBowie teaches ways to reduce power, but does not teach\nthat maximum power reduction is its intended purpose.\nSee Bowie col. 1 ll. 26–28 (explaining that “[t]he use of\nPOTS-compatible transmission frequencies severely limits\nthe maximum information carrying capacity of the wire\nloop”). Bowie, however, explicitly recognizes the need for\nsome circuitry to remain on during low power mode to re-\nceive signals. See id. col. 5 ll. 28–30 (“Circuitry 115 to de-\ntect the resume signal must remain capable of signal\ndetection during low power operation.”). For example,\nBowie’s specification demonstrates that in some embodi-\nments, its transceiver stores parameters before entering\ninto a low power mode. Id. col. 4 l. 64–col. 5 l. 4 (“Prior to\ninitiating transport of modulated data over the loop 220,\nsignals are exchanged over the loop 220 between the COT\nunit 232 and the CPE unit 242 to adapt the ADSL\nunits . . . . This exchange of information is often referred\nto as handshaking.”).\n Second, while Bowie does not provide a list of the types\nof parameters it stores, it does specify that the parameters\nstored are determined and exchanged during initialization.\nId. col. 5 ll. 17–19 (“Upon receipt of the shut-down signal,\nthe COT unit 232 optionally stores in memory 117 charac-\nteristics the of the loop 220 that were determined by CPE\nto COT handshaking.”). These include bit allocation pa-\nrameters and fine gain parameters, which the ’404 patent\nuses for the same process. J.A. 565 (explaining, by Dish’s\nexpert, that “the 1995 ADSL Standard explicitly discloses\na ‘fine gain parameter’ and a ‘bit allocation parameter’” and\nthat “these [fine gain parameter and bit allocation param-\neters] are part of the ‘loop loss characteristics’ already dis-\nclosed in Bowie as being stored during the unit’s 232, 242\nlow power mode”). It would have, therefore, been obvious\nto a PHOSITA for Bowie’s system to store bit allocation\n\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 19\n\n\n\nparameters and fine gain parameters since those are ex-\nchanged during initialization as taught by the ADSL\nStandard. See J.A. 565–66 (testimony, by Dish’s expert,\nthat “Bowie would have been operating according to the\n1995 ADSL Standard, and a [PHOSITA] would have looked\nto that [s]tandard for guidance”), 571 (Dish’s expert ex-\nplaining that Bowie’s “parameters are used to restore data\ntransmission on the loop without having to perform the\n‘handshaking’ (or initialization) process again”).\n Third, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to em-\nploy Vanzieleghem’s synchronization signal, or pilot tone,\nin combination with Bowie. “[A] reference teaches away\nfrom a combination when using it in that combination\nwould produce an inoperative result.” In re ICON Health\n& Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007). It is\ntrue that Bowie discloses that “[t]he resume signal may be\nan [alternating current (‘AC’)] signal at a frequency above\nvoiceband, such as a 16 kHz AC signal,” Bowie col. 2 ll. 27–\n28, which is the same frequency that TQ Delta asserts Van-\nzieleghem’s pilot tone emits and would cause a false trigger\nin Bowie, see Appellant’s Br. 60. However, Bowie supports\nthe PTAB’s determination, when it later states that “[t]he\nresume signal may be an AC signal greater than 4 kHz or\nmay be a multi-tone AC signal.” Id. col. 2 ll. 44–46 (empha-\nses added). Bowie, thus, does not require its resume signal\nto be set to receive a 16 kHz AC signal, such that a\nPHOSITA could employ Bowie’s resume signal at a differ-\nent frequency without rendering Bowie inoperable. See\nBowie col. 2 ll. 44–46. Therefore, the combination of prior\nart renders obvious the Challenged Claims.\n TQ Delta’s primary counterargument is unpersuasive.\nTQ Delta argues that “[t]he fact that Bowie may perform\n‘additional handshaking’ after returning to its full power\nmode does not change the fact that . . . Bowie’s ADSL unit\nalways re-determines loop transmission characteristics,\ni.e., performs handshaking or initialization, before return-\ning to full power mode.” Appellant’s Br. 47 (third emphasis\n\f20 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\n\n\n\n\nadded). However, Bowie discloses that reinitialization is\nneeded in some, but not all, instances. See Bowie, Abstract;\nsee id. col. 5 ll. 20–22 (“Likewise, upon sending the shut-\ndown signal, the CPE unit . . . may also optionally store the\nloop characteristics that it obtained through CPE to COT\nhandshaking.”). Bowie explains that “[h]andshaking infor-\nmation may be required where, for example, loop charac-\nteristics have changed due, for example, to temperature-\ndependent changes in loop resistance.” Id. col. 6 ll. 38–41\n(emphasis added). This, however, does not indicate that all\nsteps of initialization are required. See id. During the IPR\nproceedings TQ Delta conceded that “Bowie specifically\nteaches that some re-initialization does occur as part of go-\ning from low power mode to full power mode.” J.A. 303. TQ\nDelta’s expert similarly explained that “Bowie . . . still\nha[s] to go through the process of . . . re-determining loop\ncharacteristics upon coming out of low power mode in order\nto accomplish Bowie’s goal of reliable data communica-\ntions.” J.A. 4309. Because the reinitialize limitation is sat-\nisfied if any step of initialization is avoided, TQ Delta’s\ninterpretation of Bowie satisfies the limitation as inter-\npreted by the PTAB. Thus, given TQ Delta and its expert’s\nadmission that Bowie discloses some steps during the rei-\nnitialization process, and prior to initialization, see\nJ.A. 303, 4309, we find no merit in its attempt on appeal to\nargue the opposite.\n CONCLUSION\n We have considered TQ Delta’s remaining arguments\nand find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Final Writ-\nten Decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Pa-\ntent Trial and Appeal Board is\n AFFIRMED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: TQ DELTA, LLC, Appellant v. DISH NETWORK LLC, Appellee\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-10\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n TQ DELTA, LLC,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n DISH NETWORK LLC,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1799\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-\\n01470.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 10, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n RAJENDRA A. CHIPLUNKAR, McAndrews, Held & Malloy,\\nLtd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented\\nby PETER J. MCANDREWS, DAVID Z. PETTY.\\n\\n HEIDI LYN KEEFE, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued\\nfor appellee. Also represented by JENNIFER VOLK, Reston,\\nVA; STEPHEN R. SMITH, Washington, DC.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before NEWMAN, LINN, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f2 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nWALLACH, Circuit Judge.\\n Appellee DISH Network (“Dish”) sought inter partes\\nreview (“IPR”) of claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 (“the Challenged\\nClaims”) of Appellant TQ Delta, LLC’s (“TQ Delta”) U.S.\\nPatent No. 8,611,404 (“the ’404 patent”). The U.S. Patent\\nand Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board\\n(“PTAB”) issued a final written decision finding, inter alia,\\nthat the Challenged Claims are unpatentable as obvious.\\nSee DISH Network LLC. v. TQ Delta, LLC, No. IPR2016-\\n01470 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2018) (J.A. 1–38).\\n TQ Delta appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28\\nU.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) (2012). We affirm.\\n BACKGROUND\\n Entitled “Multicarrier Transmission System with Low\\nPower Sleep Mode and Rapid-On Capability,” the ’404 pa-\\ntent relates to the field of “multicarrier transmission sys-\\ntems.” ’404 patent col. 1 l. 31. “Multicarrier transmission\\nsystems provide high speed data links between communi-\\ncation points[ and have recently been used] . . . for commu-\\nnications over the local subscriber loop that connects a\\ntelephone service subscriber to a central telephone of-\\nfice. . . .” 1 Id. col. 1 ll. 37–41. The ’404 patent generally\\ndescribes a method for “establishing a power management\\nsleep state in a multicarrier system” and efficiently waking\\nup a transmission system utilized on hardware, such as a\\ncomputer, from sleep mode. Id. col. 1 ll. 32–33; see id., Ab-\\nstract. The process involved when the transmission system\\n\\n\\n 1 The ’404 patent explains that the recent applica-\\ntion of these systems described in the patent “are com-\\nmonly referred to as ‘xDSL’ systems, where the ‘x’ specifies\\na particular variant of DSL (digital subscriber loop) com-\\nmunications, e.g., ADSL (asynchronous digital subscriber\\nloop), HDSL (High-Speed Digital Subscriber Loop), etc.”\\n’404 patent col. 1 ll. 42–47.\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 3\\n\\n\\n\\nis first powered up prior to sleep mode is referred to as\\n“full . . . initialization.” Id., Abstract. Specifically, the ’404\\npatent describes the invention “in the context of an ADSL\\nsystem having a first transceiver located at the site of a\\ncustomer’s premises,” referred to as the “CPE transceiver,”\\nas well as “a second transceiver located at a local central\\ntelephone office” referred to as the “CO transceiver.” Id.\\ncol. 3 ll. 63–67 (internal quotation marks omitted). The\\n’404 patent explains that “since the CPE transceiver and\\nCO transceiver are very similar, the invention [is] ex-\\nplained in connection with a detailed illustration of the\\nCPE transceiver only.” Id. col. 4 ll. 11–13. Generally, in\\nDSL systems, “a pair of transceivers communicate with\\n[each] other by dividing the overall bandwidth of the chan-\\nnel interconnecting the subscriber and the central office\\ninto a large number of separate subchannels, each of lim-\\nited bandwidth, operating in parallel with each other.” Id.\\ncol. 1 ll. 48–52.\\n Independent claim 6 is illustrative and recites:\\n An apparatus comprising a transceiver operable to:\\n receive, in a full power mode, a plurality of\\n superframes, wherein the superframe com-\\n prises a plurality of data frames followed\\n by a synchronization frame;\\n receive, in the full power mode, a synchro-\\n nization signal;\\n transmit a message to enter into a low\\n power mode;\\n store, in a low power mode, at least one pa-\\n rameter associated with the full power\\n mode operation wherein the at least one\\n parameter comprises at least one of a fine\\n gain parameter and a bit allocation param-\\n eter;\\n\\f4 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n receive, in the low power mode, a synchro-\\n nization signal; and\\n exit from the low power and restore the full\\n power mode by using the at least one pa-\\n rameter and without needing to reinitialize\\n the transceiver.\\nId. col. 10 ll. 29–43 (emphasis added).\\n DISCUSSION\\n TQ Delta challenges the PTAB’s claim construction on\\nthe basis that the PTAB violated TQ Delta’s procedural\\nrights by relying on a new claim construction, see Appel-\\nlant’s Br. 25–29, and improperly construed the “without\\nneeding to reinitialize” limitation, see id. at 29–36. TQ\\nDelta also argues the PTAB’s finding of obviousness is not\\nsupported by substantial evidence. See id. at 36–64. We\\naddress each argument in turn.\\n I. The Administrative Procedure Act\\n A. Standard of Review and Legal Standard\\n “IPR proceedings are formal administrative adjudica-\\ntions subject to the procedural requirements of the Admin-\\nistrative Procedure Act (‘APA’).” SAS Inst., Inc. v.\\nComplementSoft, LLC., 825 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir.\\n2016), rev’d on other grounds sub nom., SAS Inst. Inc. v.\\nIancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018); see APA, 60 Stat. 237 (1946)\\n(codified in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C. (2012)). Pursuant\\nto the APA, we will set aside a PTAB decision that is “arbi-\\ntrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not\\nin accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). In the con-\\ntext of IPR proceedings, the PTAB “may not change theo-\\nries in midstream without giving respondents reasonable\\nnotice of the change and the opportunity to present argu-\\nment under the new theory.” SAS, 825 F.3d at 1351 (inter-\\nnal quotation marks and citation omitted); see 5 U.S.C.\\n§ 554(b) (“Persons entitled to notice of an agency hearing\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 5\\n\\n\\n\\nshall be timely informed of . . . the matters of fact and law\\nasserted.”). 2 The APA and due process require “notice” and\\na “fair opportunity” to be heard. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek\\nLLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015).\\n B. The PTAB Did Not Violate TQ Delta’s APA Rights\\n In its decision to institute, the PTAB, after identifying\\na passage in U.S. Patent No. 5,956,323 (“Bowie”) that “loop\\ntransmission characteristics are ‘retrieved from memory\\nand used to enable data transmission to resume quickly by\\nreducing the time needed to determine loop transmission\\ncharacteristics,’” stated that “[Dish] explains that a person\\n[having] ordinary skill in the art [(‘PHOSITA’)] would un-\\nderstand this [passage] to mean that the ‘parameters are\\nused to restore data transmission on the loop without hav-\\ning to perform the ‘handshaking’ (or initialization) process\\nagain.” J.A. 229. In its Final Written Decision, the PTAB\\ninterpreted the claim term “without needing to reinitialize”\\nas being “satisfied if any step of initialization is avoided.”\\nJ.A. 29. TQ Delta avers that the PTAB violated its proce-\\ndural rights “[b]y changing its interpretation of the ‘with-\\nout needing to reinitialize’ limitation.” Appellant’s Br. 25.\\nTQ Delta also asserts that the PTAB “unfairly denied TQ\\nDelta any opportunity to respond [to the change in its in-\\nterpretation of the term] in a meaningful way.” Id. (capi-\\ntalization modified). More specifically, TQ Delta asserts\\nthat because neither party advocated for a new claim con-\\nstruction and the PTAB sua sponte construed the “without\\nneeding to reinitialize” limitation as being “satisfied if any\\n\\n\\n 2 TQ Delta relies upon 35 U.S.C. § 554, which does\\nnot exist in Title 35 of the U.S. Code. See Appellant’s Br.\\n25. We believe that TQ Delta intends to cite to 5 U.S.C.\\n§ 554, which governs administrative procedure, and that it\\nis clear from its arguments that TQ Delta is raising a claim\\nunder the APA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 554. We, therefore,\\nconstrue this claim as an APA challenge.\\n\\f6 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nstep of initialization is avoided,” TQ Delta was denied a\\nproper chance to respond to the PTAB’s understanding of\\nthe claim term. Id. at 24. We disagree with TQ Delta.\\n The PTAB did not violate TQ Delta’s APA rights. The\\nPTAB never construed the “reinitialize” limitation in its\\nDecision to Institute IPR as TQ Delta contends, and it,\\ntherefore, did not change course by construing the term in\\nthe Final Written Decision. See id. Rather, in its Decision\\nto Institute, the PTAB summarized DISH’s arguments ad-\\ndressing how a PHOSITA would interpret the disclosures\\nin Bowie. J.A. 229. In the Final Written Decision, the\\nPTAB explained what its understanding of the limitation\\nwas in the context of the prior art. J.A. 29 (explaining that\\n“[the PTAB is] still persuaded that Bowie teaches exiting\\nlow power mode and restoring full power mode ‘without\\nneeding to reinitialize the transceiver’ because we inter-\\npret that phrase to be satisfied as long as the entire initial-\\nization process is not needed”); see also HTC Corp. v.\\nCellular Comm’cns Equip., LLC, 701 F. App’x 978, 981\\n(Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining the PTAB “engaged in claim\\nconstruction when it proceeded to determine whether [the\\nprior art] disclosed [certain] limitations” because, “[d]es-\\npite the heading under which the [PTAB]’s analysis took\\nplace, [its] ruling about the requirement of separate com-\\nponents was clearly a claim construction” by “establish[ing]\\nthe scope and boundaries of the subject matter that is pa-\\ntented” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Net-\\nword, LLC v. Centraal Corp., 242 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir.\\n2001))). Thus, the PTAB did not “change course” by con-\\nstruing the limitation in the Final Written Decision be-\\ncause it did not construe the term in its Decision to\\nInstitute.\\n Nevertheless, TQ Delta had notice of the PTAB’s un-\\nderstanding of the “reinitialization” limitation as it relates\\nto the prior art before the PTAB issued the Final Written\\nDecision. See J.A. 303–04 (arguing, by TQ Delta in its pa-\\ntent owner response, that Bowie does not disclose the\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 7\\n\\n\\n\\ndisputed limitation). During the Oral Hearing, the PTAB\\nrepeatedly asked TQ Delta about its narrow construction\\nof the term and explained that it disagreed with TQ Delta’s\\ninterpretation. See, e.g., J.A. 417 (“I’m just not understand-\\ning your argument that there’s more to avoiding reinitiali-\\nzation than storing because there’s nothing in the claim\\n– there’s nothing claimed beyond the storing of the param-\\neter and the receiving of the sync signal that would allow\\nit to avoid reinitializing when it exits from low power\\nmode”). After the Oral Hearing, TQ Delta was given the\\nopportunity to respond. See Intellectual Ventures II LLC v.\\nEricsson Inc., 686 F. App’x 900, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (ex-\\nplaining that the patent owner’s APA and due process ar-\\nguments were meritless because it was on notice of the at-\\nissue construction before the final written decision issued\\nbecause it had the “opportunity to seek a sur-reply or re-\\nhearing” and there was a “continuous focus on [the claim\\nterm] before and during oral arguments”); see also id. (ex-\\nplaining that “[t]he [PTAB] is not constrained by the par-\\nties’ proposed constructions and is free to adopt its own\\nconstruction”).\\n While TQ Delta asserts that this case is similar to SAS,\\nwhich held that, under the APA, the PTAB cannot change\\ntheories midstream by adopting a construction in its final\\nwritten decision that neither party requested or antici-\\npated, see 825 F.3d at 1351, we disagree. In SAS, the par-\\nties agreed to the construction adopted by the PTAB at\\ninstitution, but the PTAB adopted a different construction\\nin its final written decision, without either party discussing\\nor briefing this new construction. Id. at 1351. We held that\\nit was “difficult to imagine either party anticipating that\\nalready-interpreted terms were actually moving targets,\\nand it is thus unreasonable to expect that they would have\\nbriefed or argued, in the alternative, hypothetical construc-\\ntions not asserted by their opponent.” Id.\\n Here, however, TQ Delta had adequate notice of the\\nPTAB’s understanding of the disputed claim limitation, as\\n\\f8 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ndemonstrated by TQ Delta’s statements throughout the\\nproceedings. For example, in its Patent Owner Response,\\nTQ Delta argued for a narrow interpretation that avoided\\nthe reinitialization process and explained that Bowie\\n“teaches that some re-initialization does occur as part of\\ngoing from low power mode to full power mode” and, thus,\\nBowie does not disclose “without needing to reinitialize the\\ntransceiver.” J.A. 303; see J.A. 304 (explaining that “Bowie\\nteaches that initialization can continue to occur even after\\nreaching the full power mode, but before data transmission\\nbegins”). The PTAB explained that it disagreed with this\\nconstruction at the Oral Hearing, see J.A. 414 (“[Dish]\\ndoesn’t need it to be teaching that it goes through the entire\\ninitialization process.”), and the PTAB questioned TQ\\nDelta’s narrow construction, see J.A. 415 (“So how in the\\nworld do you avoid needing to reinitialize the transceiver\\nif all you’ve done is stored parameters if its true that, as\\nyou say, there’s more to reinitialization than parameter\\ndetermination?”). TQ Delta, however, responded to the\\nPTAB’s interpretation that “there could be some way that\\n[Bowie] determines the temperature’s changed short of full\\nreinitialization” with “[t]here’s no expert testimony regard-\\ning how a modem, other than by using initialization steps\\ncan determine that attenuation has changed” and “to the\\nextent there’s some suggestion that these modems have\\nsome other method without reinitialization to determine\\nthat attenuation has changed, there’s nothing in the rec-\\nord” that addresses this issue. J.A. 413–17. Clearly, TQ\\nDelta had notice of the PTAB’s understanding of the “rei-\\nnitialize” limitation prior to issuance of the Final Written\\nDecision. Because TQ Delta had notice of the claim con-\\nstruction issue and the opportunity to be heard, the PTAB\\ndid not violate the APA. See Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc.\\nv. f’real Foods, LLC, 908 F.3d 1328, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2018)\\n(distinguishing SAS because the party asserting the APA\\nviolation “had notice of the contested claim construction is-\\nsues and an opportunity to be heard”).\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 9\\n\\n\\n\\n II. Claim Construction\\n A. Standard of Review and Legal Standard\\n At the time of the Final Written Decision, the PTAB\\ngave “[a] claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in\\nlight of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”\\n37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017). A specification “includes both\\nthe written description and the claims” of the patent. In re\\nPackard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1320 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “A pa-\\ntent’s specification, together with its prosecution history,[3]\\nconstitutes intrinsic evidence to which the PTAB gives pri-\\nority when it construes claims.” Knowles Elecs. LLC v. Cir-\\nrus Logic, Inc., 883 F.3d 1358, 1361−62 (Fed. Cir. 2018).\\n“We review the PTAB’s assessment of the intrinsic evi-\\ndence de novo.” Id. at 1362.\\nB. The PTAB Properly Construed the “Without Needing to\\n Reinitialize” Limitation 4\\n The PTAB determined that the “without needing to rei-\\nnitialize” limitation, in the context of comparing it to that\\nwhich is disclosed in the prior art, is “satisfied as long as\\nthe entire initialization process is not needed.” J.A. 29.\\nMore specifically, the PTAB explained that the limitation\\n“is satisfied if any step of initialization is avoided[] and\\ndoes not require that every step of initialization be\\n\\n\\n 3 A patent’s prosecution history “consists of the com-\\nplete record of the proceedings before the [US]PTO,” which\\nprovides “evidence of how the [US]PTO and the inventor\\nunderstood the patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d\\n1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citation omitted).\\n 4 TQ Delta concedes that, “even though the [PTAB]\\nconstrued ‘without needing to reinitialize’ in the context of\\napplying that limitation to the prior art . . . and not in the\\n‘Claim Construction’ section of the Final Written Deci-\\nsion . . . review of the construction . . . is proper.” Appel-\\nlant’s Br. 29.\\n\\f10 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\navoided.” J.A. 29. TQ Delta asserts that the “[PTAB]’s con-\\nstruction conflicts with the plain meaning of the claim lan-\\nguage,” because “both parties agreed that the plain\\nmeaning of [the term] is without needing to perform any\\nstep of the initialization process.” Appellant’s Br. 30 (cap-\\nitalization modified). We disagree with TQ Delta.\\n The ’404 patent’s claims and specification teach that\\n“reinitialize” does not require that every step of initializa-\\ntion is avoided, but rather that it is satisfied if any step is\\navoided, thereby supporting the PTAB’s construction. We\\nbegin our analysis with the claim language. In re Power\\nIntegrations, Inc., 884 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018)\\n(“Claim construction must begin with the words of the\\nclaims themselves.” (internal quotation marks, brackets,\\nand citation omitted)). Independent claim 6 discloses a\\ntransceiver operable to “exit from the low power and re-\\nstore the full power mode by using the at least one param-\\neter and without needing to reinitialize the transceiver.”\\n’404 patent col. 10 ll. 41–43 (emphasis added). The express\\nlanguage of the Challenged Claims does not recite a prior\\nor first initialization and therefore uses the term “reinitial-\\nize” to mean repeating the same prior initialization process\\nover again. See, e.g., id.\\n The surrounding claims and broader specification pro-\\nvide additional support for our interpretation. See Phillips,\\n415 F.3d at 1314 (“[T]he claims themselves provide sub-\\nstantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim\\nterms.”); see also Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,\\n811 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The specification is\\nalways highly relevant to the claim construction analysis\\nand is, in fact, the single best guide to the meaning of a\\ndisputed term.” (internal quotation marks, brackets, and\\ncitation omitted)). The Challenged Claims’ use of “re” in\\n“reinitialize” refers to repeating that prior initialization\\nprocess. See Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc.,\\n239 F.3d 1225, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing a dictionary\\ndefining “the prefix ‘re-’ as ‘again, anew, over again’” and\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 11\\n\\n\\n\\nexplaining that “in common parlance, it is customary to\\nspeak of ‘circulating’ something once (e.g., an inter-office\\nmemorandum), without ‘recirculating’ it a second time”).\\nIndependent claim 1 also uses language similar to claim 6\\nand recites “stor[ing] . . . at least one parameter . . . com-\\npris[ing] at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit al-\\nlocation parameter,” and then “restor[ing] the full power\\nmode by using the at least one parameter and without\\nneeding to reinitialize the transceiver.” ’404 patent col. 10\\nll. 10–13, 16–18. The consistent use of similar language in\\nboth independent claims indicates that following the pa-\\nrameters under which the DSL transceivers operate, the\\n“without needing to reinitialize” the full initialization pro-\\ncess is a parameter determined during the transceiver’s be-\\nginning initialization. See id.; see also id. col. 3 ll. 25–30\\n(explaining that “in an already-operating installation, the\\ntime required to initialize or re-initialize the system after\\na suspension of operation in connection with power conser-\\nvation is generally unacceptable, since it is typically de-\\nsired to have the modem respond to [a] request for service\\nnearly instantaneously”). This beginning initialization is\\nrequired to establish stable data communication between\\ntransceivers and indicates that not all of the transmission\\nparameters determined during the beginning initialization\\ncan be stored and, thus, some form of initialization is nec-\\nessary to resume subsequent data transmission. See id.\\ncol. 3 ll. 7–20. The Challenged Claims, therefore, support\\nthe conclusion that “reinitialize” means initialization after\\nthe transceiver’s beginning initialization and power down\\ninto sleep mode.\\n Moreover, the specification provides an overview of the\\ntransceiver initiation process. See ’404 patent col. 3 ll. 7–\\n20. The specification explains that transceivers, at the\\ntime, performed “full . . . initialization” when waking from\\ninactivity. Id., Abstract. The specification indicates that\\nthe purpose of the invention is to avoid full initialization\\nand offer a more convenient “rapid-on capability,” id. col. 3\\n\\f12 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nl. 33, so transceiver services resume “nearly instantane-\\nously,” id. col. 3 ll. 29–30, or “within a few frames” after\\nperiods of inactivity, id. col. 6 ll. 5–6; see id. col. 3 ll. 24–33.\\nThe specification twice discusses avoiding reinitializations\\nand does not expressly require avoiding the entire initiali-\\nzation process. First, the ’404 patent explains that after a\\ntransceiver is idling in sleep mode, “[t]he full transmission\\nand reception capabilities of the transceiver are quickly re-\\nstored when needed, without requiring the full (and time-\\nconsuming) initialization.” Id., Abstract. Second, the spec-\\nification explains that the transceiver “need not repeat the\\ninitialization that was earlier required to establish the req-\\nuisite parameters . . . required for reliable communica-\\ntions.” Id. col. 8 ll. 6–12. This also refers to the full\\ninitialization process because it describes the process from\\nexiting sleep mode through waking up from sleep mode.\\nSee id. col. 8 ll. 1–12. Therefore, the “without needing to\\nreinitialize” limitation is “satisfied as long as the entire in-\\nitialization process is not needed.”\\n TQ Delta’s primary counterargument is unavailing.\\nTQ Delta asserts that “the [PTAB]’s construction improp-\\nerly reads the word [full] from the Abstract into the claims”\\nas the “claim language does not include the word ‘full.’” Ap-\\npellant’s Br. 32. Additionally, TQ Delta states that “re-\\ngardless of the import of [full] as used in the\\nAbstract . . . by omitting the word ‘full’ in the claims, it is\\nreasonable to assume that the applicant intended for the\\nclaim language to have a different scope than the language\\nfound in the Abstract.” Id. As such, TQ Delta recognizes\\nthat the specification’s use of “full” in the Abstract, ’404 pa-\\ntent, Abstract, and the phrase “the initialization that was\\nearlier required,” id. col. 8 ll. 6–7, together imply that any\\nform of initialization less than the “full” or “earlier” initial-\\nization is sufficient to achieve the ’404 patent’s purpose of\\nrapid-on capability, see Appellant’s Br. 32. This language\\nin the patent is critical to understand the meaning of the\\ndisputed limitation given the ’404 patent’s objective of\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 13\\n\\n\\n\\nproviding rapid-on capability. See ’404 patent col. 3 ll. 31–\\n33; see also Netword, 242 F.3d at 1352 (“The claims are di-\\nrected to the invention that is described in the specifica-\\ntion; they do not have meaning removed from the context\\nfrom which they arose.”). Tellingly, nothing in the specifi-\\ncation suggests that the only way to achieve rapid-on capa-\\nbilities is by avoiding the initialization process entirely.\\nSee generally ’404 patent. Thus, we do not understand the\\nclaims as being limited to only achieving rapid-on capabil-\\nities by avoiding the initialization process altogether.\\n III. Obviousness\\n A. The Relevant Prior Art\\n 1. Bowie\\n Entitled “Power Conservation for [Plain Old Telephone\\nService (‘POTS’)] and Modulated Data Transmission,” U.S.\\nPatent No. 5,956,323 (“Bowie”) discloses “a power conser-\\nvation system for modulated data communications.” Bowie\\ncol. 1 ll. 4–5. Bowie describes an ADSL technology “used to\\ntransmit wide-bandwidth modulated data over a two-wire\\nloop using high frequency carrier signals.” Id. col. 3 ll. 24–\\n25. Bowie explains that, prior to transmitting any data,\\n“signals are exchanged . . . to adapt the ADSL [transceiv-\\ners] to the electronic characteristics of the particular wire\\nloop 220” over which those ADSL transceivers communi-\\ncate. Id. col. 4 l. 64–col. 5 l. 1. When it is in low power\\nmode and ready to wake up, the transceiver wakes from\\nlow power mode and “retrieve[s] from memory” any saved\\nor stored “parameters” “to enable data transmission to re-\\nsume quickly by reducing the time needed to determine\\nloop transmission characteristics.” Id. col. 5 ll. 64–66. Fur-\\nther, Bowie explains there are some instances where ADSL\\nreceivers “may” need to “exchange handshaking[5]\\n\\n\\n 5 “Th[e] exchange of information [over a loop be-\\ntween the customer premises equipment (‘CPE’) and\\n\\f14 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ninformation to establish reliable data communication,”\\neven after the parameters are restored. Id. col. 6 ll. 36–37;\\nsee id. col. 5 l. 66 col. 6 l. 2. For example, “[h]andshaking\\ninformation may be required where . . . loop characteristics\\nhave changed due, for example, to temperature-dependent\\nchanges in loop resistance.” Id. col. 6 ll. 37–41.\\n 2. The ADSL Standard\\n In 1995, the American National Standards Institute\\n(“ANSI”) published the “Network and Customer Installa-\\ntion Interfaces – Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line\\n(ADSL) Metallic Interface,” known as ANSI T1.413-1995\\n(“the ADSL Standard”) (J.A. 1199–301). J.A. 1199. The\\nADSL Standard is the first technical standard defining the\\nrequirements for a single ADSL for interfaces between a\\ntelecommunications network and the customer installation\\nin terms of their electrical characteristics and interactions.\\nSee, e.g., J.A. 1220, 1223. 6 The ADSL Standard discloses a\\nset of requirements for transmissions between ADSL\\ntransceivers, including the initialization process that all\\nADSL transceivers must perform. J.A. 1220 (explaining\\nthat “[t]he system reference model . . . illustrates the func-\\ntional blocks required to provide ADSL service”). During\\ninitialization, the ADSL Standard mandates that\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ncentral office terminal (‘COT’) units] is often referred to as\\nhandshaking. Once handshaking is completed, transmis-\\nsion of user data may begin.” Bowie col. 5 ll. 3–5; see id.\\ncol. 4 l. 64–col. 5 l. 3.\\n 6 The parties have used “ANSI T1.413” and “the\\n1995 ADSL Standard” interchangeably because they both\\nrefer to the ADSL Standard. See Appellant’s Br. 10; Appel-\\nlee’s Br. 4. As such, we refer to the 1995 ADSL Standard\\nand ANSI T1.413 as the ADSL Standard unless otherwise\\nnoted.\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 15\\n\\n\\n\\n“transceiver initialization is required . . . to establish a\\ncommunications link.” J.A. 1301.\\n 3. Vanzieleghem\\n Entitled “Multi-Carrier Telecommunication System\\nwith Power Reduction Means,” European Patent No. 0 883\\n269 A1 (“Vanzieleghem”) (J.A. 1188–98) discloses an ADSL\\ntransmitter that operates according to the ADSL Standard.\\nJ.A. 1189. Vanzieleghem explains that “[w]hen idle data\\nare received, the power dissipated in the transmitter is re-\\nduced because the symbols are then merely derived from a\\nfew or even a single carrier (the ‘pilot tone’) instead as from\\nall the available carriers.” J.A. 1188. Vanzieleghem also\\ndiscloses that a “pilot tone,” or synchronization signal, is\\ntransmitted during low power mode for the purpose of\\n“maintain[ing] the frequency synchronization between the\\ntransmitter and the receiver.” J.A. 1192. Vanzieleghem\\ndiscloses that when the transmitter wakes up, it can re-\\nstart transmitting data faster. See J.A. 1189 (explaining\\nthat “[t]he transmission system remains thus efficient in\\nthat it allows a fast restart”).\\n B. Standard of Review and Legal Standard\\n “We review the PTAB’s factual findings for substantial\\nevidence and its legal conclusions de novo.” Redline Detec-\\ntion, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 449 (Fed.\\nCir. 2015) (citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is\\nsomething less than the weight of the evidence but more\\nthan a mere scintilla of evidence,” meaning that “[i]t is such\\nrelevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as ad-\\nequate to support a conclusion.” In re NuVasive, Inc., 842\\nF.3d 1376, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation\\nmarks and citations omitted). “If two inconsistent conclu-\\nsions may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in rec-\\nord, the PTAB’s decision to favor one conclusion over the\\nother is the epitome of a decision that must be sustained\\nupon review for substantial evidence.” Elbit Sys. of Am.,\\nLLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir.\\n\\f16 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n2018) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation\\nomitted).\\n A patent claim is invalid “if the differences between the\\nclaimed invention and the prior art are such that the\\nclaimed invention as a whole would have been obvious be-\\nfore the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a\\n[PHOSITA].” 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2012). 7 Obviousness “is a\\nquestion of law based on underlying findings of fact.” In re\\nGartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Those un-\\nderlying findings of fact include (1) “the scope and content\\nof the prior art,” (2) “differences between the prior art and\\nthe claims at issue,” (3) “the level of ordinary skill in the\\npertinent art,” and (4) the presence of objective indicia of\\nnonobviousness such “as commercial success, long felt but\\nunsolved needs, failure of others,” and unexpected results.\\nGraham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17\\n(1966); see United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50–52\\n(1966). In assessing the prior art, the PTAB also “con-\\nsider[s] whether a PHOSITA would have been motivated\\nto combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention\\nand whether there would have been a reasonable expecta-\\ntion of success in doing so.” In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.,\\n832 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation\\nmarks, brackets, and citation omitted).\\n C. Substantial Evidence Supports the PTAB’s Obvious-\\n ness Finding\\n The PTAB held that the Challenged Claims would have\\nbeen obvious over a combination of Bowie, the ADSL\\nStandard, and Vanzieleghem. J.A. 34. Specifically, the\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 Congress amended § 103 when it enacted the\\nLeahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). Pub. L. No.\\n112-29, § 3(c), 125 Stat. 284, 287 (2011). Because the ’404\\npatent has an effective filing date after March 16, 2013,\\nthe AIA applies. See id. § 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. at 293.\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 17\\n\\n\\n\\nPTAB determined that “it would have been within the level\\nof ordinary skill in the art to select a frequency for Bowie’s\\nresume signal such that Vanzieleghem’s pilot tone would\\nnot be mistaken for the resume signal.” J.A. 34. TQ Delta\\nasserts that “the [PTAB] erred in finding the Challenged\\nClaims unpatentable” because “Bowie does not teach avoid-\\ning any steps of the initialization process.” Appellant’s\\nBr. 51 (capitalization modified). 8 Regarding motivation to\\ncombine, TQ Delta argues Bowie teaches away from the\\nclaimed reinitialization limitation because “Bowie and the\\n’404 patent are fundamentally different in how they teach\\ngoing back to transmitting data in full power mode opera-\\ntion after coming out of a low power mode.” Id. at 54 (in-\\nternal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover,\\nTQ Delta asserts the prior art teaches away from the Chal-\\nlenged Claims because “using Vanzieleghem’s synchroni-\\nzation signal in combination with Bowie, as proposed by\\n[Dish], would produce an inoperative result.” Id. at 58 (in-\\nternal quotation marks omitted). TQ Delta states that the\\ncombination would be inoperative because “Van-\\nzieleghem’s pilot tone would cause Bowie to constantly\\nwake up to return to full power mode,” id. at 59 (internal\\nquotation marks and citation omitted), given that Van-\\nzieleghem’s pilot tone may have a signal pilot strength of\\n16 kilohertz (“kHz”), which may “falsely trigger the resume\\nsignal detector and cause the modem of Bowie’s system to\\nreturn to full power mode, even if no resume signal is trans-\\nmitted,” id. at 60 (internal quotation marks and citation\\nomitted). We disagree with TQ Delta.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 TQ Delta does not dispute that the prior art teaches\\nnearly every limitation of the Challenged Claims, see gen-\\nerally Appellant’s Br., and instead confines its challenge to\\narguing Bowie does not teach the “without needing to rei-\\nnitialize” limitation, see id. at 51.\\n\\f18 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Substantial evidence supports the PTAB’s determina-\\ntion that Bowie, in view of the ADSL Standard and Van-\\nzieleghem, renders obvious the Challenged Claims. First,\\nBowie teaches ways to reduce power, but does not teach\\nthat maximum power reduction is its intended purpose.\\nSee Bowie col. 1 ll. 26–28 (explaining that “[t]he use of\\nPOTS-compatible transmission frequencies severely limits\\nthe maximum information carrying capacity of the wire\\nloop”). Bowie, however, explicitly recognizes the need for\\nsome circuitry to remain on during low power mode to re-\\nceive signals. See id. col. 5 ll. 28–30 (“Circuitry 115 to de-\\ntect the resume signal must remain capable of signal\\ndetection during low power operation.”). For example,\\nBowie’s specification demonstrates that in some embodi-\\nments, its transceiver stores parameters before entering\\ninto a low power mode. Id. col. 4 l. 64–col. 5 l. 4 (“Prior to\\ninitiating transport of modulated data over the loop 220,\\nsignals are exchanged over the loop 220 between the COT\\nunit 232 and the CPE unit 242 to adapt the ADSL\\nunits . . . . This exchange of information is often referred\\nto as handshaking.”).\\n Second, while Bowie does not provide a list of the types\\nof parameters it stores, it does specify that the parameters\\nstored are determined and exchanged during initialization.\\nId. col. 5 ll. 17–19 (“Upon receipt of the shut-down signal,\\nthe COT unit 232 optionally stores in memory 117 charac-\\nteristics the of the loop 220 that were determined by CPE\\nto COT handshaking.”). These include bit allocation pa-\\nrameters and fine gain parameters, which the ’404 patent\\nuses for the same process. J.A. 565 (explaining, by Dish’s\\nexpert, that “the 1995 ADSL Standard explicitly discloses\\na ‘fine gain parameter’ and a ‘bit allocation parameter’” and\\nthat “these [fine gain parameter and bit allocation param-\\neters] are part of the ‘loop loss characteristics’ already dis-\\nclosed in Bowie as being stored during the unit’s 232, 242\\nlow power mode”). It would have, therefore, been obvious\\nto a PHOSITA for Bowie’s system to store bit allocation\\n\\fTQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC 19\\n\\n\\n\\nparameters and fine gain parameters since those are ex-\\nchanged during initialization as taught by the ADSL\\nStandard. See J.A. 565–66 (testimony, by Dish’s expert,\\nthat “Bowie would have been operating according to the\\n1995 ADSL Standard, and a [PHOSITA] would have looked\\nto that [s]tandard for guidance”), 571 (Dish’s expert ex-\\nplaining that Bowie’s “parameters are used to restore data\\ntransmission on the loop without having to perform the\\n‘handshaking’ (or initialization) process again”).\\n Third, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to em-\\nploy Vanzieleghem’s synchronization signal, or pilot tone,\\nin combination with Bowie. “[A] reference teaches away\\nfrom a combination when using it in that combination\\nwould produce an inoperative result.” In re ICON Health\\n& Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007). It is\\ntrue that Bowie discloses that “[t]he resume signal may be\\nan [alternating current (‘AC’)] signal at a frequency above\\nvoiceband, such as a 16 kHz AC signal,” Bowie col. 2 ll. 27–\\n28, which is the same frequency that TQ Delta asserts Van-\\nzieleghem’s pilot tone emits and would cause a false trigger\\nin Bowie, see Appellant’s Br. 60. However, Bowie supports\\nthe PTAB’s determination, when it later states that “[t]he\\nresume signal may be an AC signal greater than 4 kHz or\\nmay be a multi-tone AC signal.” Id. col. 2 ll. 44–46 (empha-\\nses added). Bowie, thus, does not require its resume signal\\nto be set to receive a 16 kHz AC signal, such that a\\nPHOSITA could employ Bowie’s resume signal at a differ-\\nent frequency without rendering Bowie inoperable. See\\nBowie col. 2 ll. 44–46. Therefore, the combination of prior\\nart renders obvious the Challenged Claims.\\n TQ Delta’s primary counterargument is unpersuasive.\\nTQ Delta argues that “[t]he fact that Bowie may perform\\n‘additional handshaking’ after returning to its full power\\nmode does not change the fact that . . . Bowie’s ADSL unit\\nalways re-determines loop transmission characteristics,\\ni.e., performs handshaking or initialization, before return-\\ning to full power mode.” Appellant’s Br. 47 (third emphasis\\n\\f20 TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nadded). However, Bowie discloses that reinitialization is\\nneeded in some, but not all, instances. See Bowie, Abstract;\\nsee id. col. 5 ll. 20–22 (“Likewise, upon sending the shut-\\ndown signal, the CPE unit . . . may also optionally store the\\nloop characteristics that it obtained through CPE to COT\\nhandshaking.”). Bowie explains that “[h]andshaking infor-\\nmation may be required where, for example, loop charac-\\nteristics have changed due, for example, to temperature-\\ndependent changes in loop resistance.” Id. col. 6 ll. 38–41\\n(emphasis added). This, however, does not indicate that all\\nsteps of initialization are required. See id. During the IPR\\nproceedings TQ Delta conceded that “Bowie specifically\\nteaches that some re-initialization does occur as part of go-\\ning from low power mode to full power mode.” J.A. 303. TQ\\nDelta’s expert similarly explained that “Bowie . . . still\\nha[s] to go through the process of . . . re-determining loop\\ncharacteristics upon coming out of low power mode in order\\nto accomplish Bowie’s goal of reliable data communica-\\ntions.” J.A. 4309. Because the reinitialize limitation is sat-\\nisfied if any step of initialization is avoided, TQ Delta’s\\ninterpretation of Bowie satisfies the limitation as inter-\\npreted by the PTAB. Thus, given TQ Delta and its expert’s\\nadmission that Bowie discloses some steps during the rei-\\nnitialization process, and prior to initialization, see\\nJ.A. 303, 4309, we find no merit in its attempt on appeal to\\nargue the opposite.\\n CONCLUSION\\n We have considered TQ Delta’s remaining arguments\\nand find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Final Writ-\\nten Decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Pa-\\ntent Trial and Appeal Board is\\n AFFIRMED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3489,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4637982,"string":"4,637,982"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellant v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Appellee"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"General Electric Company v. United Technologies Corp."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-10"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"2017-2497"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Reyna, Taranto, Hughes\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888892/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"030concurrence\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888893/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"REYNA, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2497\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-\\n00531.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 10, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n BRIAN E. FERGUSON, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP,\\nWashington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented\\nby STEPHEN BOSCO, CHRISTOPHER PEPE; ANISH R. DESAI,\\nNew York, NY.\\n\\n MICHAEL VALAIK, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar &\\nScott LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also repre-\\nsented by PATRICK JOSEPH COYNE, MICHAEL ANDREW\\nHOLTMAN, SYDNEY KESTLE, JEFFREY CURTISS TOTTEN, Fin-\\nnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP,\\nWashington, DC; BENJAMIN AARON SAIDMAN, Atlanta, GA.\\n ______________________\\n\\n2 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES\\n CORP.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Before REYNA, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.\\n Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge REYNA.\\n Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge HUGHES.\\nREYNA, Circuit Judge.\\n General Electric Company petitioned the United\\nStates Patent Trial and Appeal Board for inter partes re-\\nview of U.S. Patent No. 8,511,605. United Technologies\\nCorporation is the assignee of the patent. The Board found\\nthe claims not obvious in view of the prior art. General\\nElectric appeals. For the reasons discussed below, we hold\\nthat General Electric lacks Article III standing and accord-\\ningly, we dismiss the appeal.\\n BACKGROUND\\n Appellee United Technologies Corporation (“UTC”) is\\nthe assignee of U.S. Patent No. 8,511,605 (“the ’605 pa-\\ntent”). The ’605 patent is generally directed to a gas tur-\\nbine engine having a gear train driven by a spool with a\\nlow stage count low pressure turbine. ’605 patent, Ab-\\nstract. This particular gas turbine engine is designed for\\nuse in airplanes and has an axially movable variable area\\nfan nozzle.\\n On January 29, 2016, General Electric Company\\n(“GE”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) chal-\\nlenging claims 1 and 2 of the ’605 patent on grounds of an-\\nticipation and claims 7–11 of the ’605 patent on grounds of\\nobviousness. After institution, UTC disclaimed claims 1\\nand 2, leaving only claims 7–11 at issue. On June 26, 2017,\\nthe United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”)\\nissued a Final Written Decision concluding that the pre-\\nponderance of the evidence did not show claims 7–11 of the\\n’605 patent to be unpatentable for obviousness. GE timely\\nappealed to this court.\\n\\nGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES 3\\nCORP.\\n\\n\\n On December 29, 2017, UTC moved to dismiss GE’s ap-\\npeal for lack of standing. UTC asserted that GE lacked\\nstanding because it failed to demonstrate a sufficient in-\\njury in fact. In support, UTC pointed to this court’s deci-\\nsions holding that an appellant does not automatically\\npossess standing to appeal an adverse Board decision by\\nvirtue of serving its petitions in the challenged IPR. GE\\nsubmitted a response on January 16, 2018, including the\\nDeclaration of Alexander E. Long, GE’s Chief IP Counsel\\nand General Counsel of Engineering for GE Aviation\\n(“First Long Declaration”). Mr. Long explained that the\\ncommercial aircraft engine business operates on a long life-\\ncycle and that airplane engines are designed to meet cer-\\ntain specifications for certain aircraft. Because the design\\nof aircraft engines can take eight years or more, GE devel-\\nops new engines based on old designs. Mr. Long stated\\nthat, in the 1970s, GE developed a geared turbofan engine\\nwith a variable area fan nozzle for NASA. GE asserted that\\nthe ’605 patent impedes its ability to use its 1970s geared-\\nfan engine design as a basis for developing and marketing\\nfuture geared turbofan engine designs with a variable area\\nfan nozzle, thereby limiting the scope of GE’s engine de-\\nsigns and its ability to compete in a highly regulated indus-\\ntry. Mr. Long also declared that designing around the ’605\\npatent restricts GE’s design choices and forced GE to incur\\nadditional research and development expenses.\\n We denied UTC’s motion without addressing the mer-\\nits and ordered UTC to brief the issue in its responsive ap-\\npellate brief. The parties subsequently briefed the\\nstanding issue. GE argued that the injuries it suffered in-\\nclude statutory estoppel, economic loss, future threat of lit-\\nigation, and competitive harm. GE relied on the First Long\\nDeclaration as evidence to show its injuries. UTC argued\\nthat GE suffered no injury in fact because: (1) UTC has not\\nsued or threatened to sue GE for infringement of the ’605\\npatent; (2) GE does not offer evidence of a concrete and par-\\nticularized economic injury because it has not developed an\\n\\n4 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES\\n CORP.\\n\\n\\nengine that implicates claims 7–11 of the ’605 patent; and\\n(3) statutory estoppel and the competitive standing doc-\\ntrine do not apply to GE.\\n We heard oral argument on November 7, 2018. Much\\nof oral argument focused on whether GE had constitutional\\nstanding to appeal and whether general statements made\\nin the First Long Declaration were sufficient to establish\\nstanding. We subsequently ordered GE to supplement the\\nFirst Long Declaration and submit any additional declara-\\ntions that would provide greater specificity regarding the\\nasserted injury GE contends provides sufficient standing to\\nappeal in this matter. We provided UTC with an oppor-\\ntunity to respond.\\n Each party filed its supplemental submission. GE filed\\nan additional declaration from Mr. Long on November 28,\\n2018 (“Second Long Declaration”). In his second declara-\\ntion, Mr. Long stated that Boeing requested information\\nfrom GE and several of its competitors for engine designs\\nfor future Boeing aircrafts. Mr. Long also noted that Boe-\\ning requested information regarding designs for both\\ngeared-fan engines and direct-drive engines.\\n In response to Boeing’s request, GE researched a\\ngeared-fan engine design that “would potentially implicate\\n[UTC’s] 605 Patent.” Second Long Decl. ¶ 5. GE asserts it\\n“expended time and money researching and further devel-\\noping” this technology for the potential business oppor-\\ntunity with Boeing. Id. ¶ 7. Ultimately, GE chose not to\\nsubmit to Boeing a geared-fan engine design and instead\\nsubmitted a design for a direct-drive engine of the type\\nused in GE’s current engine designs. The record does not\\nindicate why GE submitted a direct-drive engine design in-\\nstead of a geared-fan engine design. Nor does Mr. Long\\nstate whether GE lost this particular bid. He contends only\\nthat to maintain GE’s competitive position, it needs to be\\nable to meet customer needs with a geared-fan engine de-\\nsign that may implicate the ’605 patent.\\n\\nGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES 5\\nCORP.\\n\\n\\n DISCUSSION\\n Not every party to an IPR will have Article III standing\\nto appeal a final written decision of the Board. See Phige-\\nnix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., 845 F.3d 1168, 1172 (Fed. Cir.\\n2017) (citing Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.\\n2131, 2143–44 (2016)). To establish standing, an appellant\\nmust have suffered an injury in fact that has a nexus to the\\nchallenged conduct and that can be ameliorated by the\\ncourt. Id. at 1171 (citing Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct.\\n1540, 1545 (2016)). The injury in fact must be “concrete\\nand particularized,” not merely “conjectural or hypothet-\\nical.” JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Auto. Ltd., 898 F.3d 1217, 1220\\n(Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis omitted) (first quoting Spokeo,\\n136 S. Ct. at 1545, and then quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wild-\\nlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)).\\n GE has the burden of showing that it suffered an injury\\nin fact sufficient to confer Article III standing to appeal.\\nSee DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342\\n(2006). It is undisputed that GE did not establish before\\nthe Board that it had standing to appeal the Board’s Final\\nWritten Decision. See JTEKT, 898 F.3d at 1220. There-\\nfore, GE must create a record in this court with the “requi-\\nsite proof of an injury in fact” sufficient to show that it has\\nstanding to appeal. Id. (quoting Phigenix, 845 F.3d at\\n1171–72). As a result, GE has submitted two declarations\\nfrom Mr. Long and has proffered three theories of harm to\\nsupport standing: (1) competitive harm; (2) economic\\nlosses; and (3) estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). For the\\nreasons stated below, we reject GE’s arguments.\\n GE’s purported competitive injuries are too speculative\\nto support constitutional standing. See Phigenix, 845 F.3d\\nat 1171 (stating that the injury must be real or imminent).\\nMr. Long’s declarations are the only evidence of standing\\nbefore the court, and neither shows a concrete and immi-\\nnent injury to GE related to the ’605 patent. Mr. Long does\\nnot assert that GE lost bids to customers because it could\\n\\n6 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES\\n CORP.\\n\\n\\noffer only a direct-drive engine design. Nor does Mr. Long\\nattest that GE submitted a direct-drive engine design to\\nBoeing because of the ’605 patent. Mr. Long contends only\\nthat GE expended some unspecified amount of time and\\nmoney to consider engine designs that could potentially im-\\nplicate the ’605 patent. Boeing may have asked for infor-\\nmation regarding a possible geared-fan engine design, but\\nthere is no evidence that Boeing demanded or required an\\nengine covered by claims 7–11 of the ’605 patent, and there\\nis no indication that GE lost the Boeing bid. The evidence\\nshows that GE submitted to Boeing a direct-drive engine\\ndesign, but there is no indication as to why it opted not to\\nsubmit a geared-fan engine design. There is also no evi-\\ndence that GE lost business or lost opportunities because it\\ncould not deliver a geared-fan engine covered by the upheld\\nclaims or any evidence that prospective bids require\\ngeared-fan engine designs. GE asserts only speculative\\nharm untethered to the ’605 patent. Without a real, par-\\nticularized injury, GE lacks standing to appeal the IPR de-\\ncision.\\n We recently addressed the “competitor standing” doc-\\ntrine in AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., 923 F.3d\\n1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019). There, we concluded that the appel-\\nlant lacked Article III standing because it had “no present\\nor nonspeculative interest in engaging in conduct even ar-\\nguably covered by the patent claims at issue.” Id. at 1363.\\nWe explained that competitor standing has been found\\nwhen government action alters competitive conditions. Id.\\nat 1364 (citing Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417,\\n433 (1998)). In those circumstances, the government “pro-\\nvides benefits to an existing competitor or expands the\\nnumber of entrants in the petitioner’s market, not an\\nagency action that is, at most, the first step in the direction\\nof future competition.” Id. at 1364 (quoting New World Ra-\\ndio, Inc. v. FCC, 294 F.3d 164, 172 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).\\n For the competitor standing doctrine to apply, the gov-\\nernment action must change the competitive landscape by,\\n\\nGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES 7\\nCORP.\\n\\n\\nfor example, creating new benefits to competitors. Put an-\\nother way, the government action must alter the status quo\\nof the field of competition. Here, the Board’s upholding of\\nclaims 7–11 of the ’605 patent did not change the competi-\\ntive landscape for commercial airplane engines. See id.\\n(“The government action is the upholding of specific patent\\nclaims, which do not address prices or introduce new com-\\npetitors, but rather give exclusivity rights over precisely\\ndefined product features.”). Therefore, we see no competi-\\ntive harm to GE sufficient to establish standing to appeal.\\n We similarly reject GE’s economic losses argument.\\nGE contends that it has been injured by increased research\\nand development costs sustained by attempts to design en-\\ngines that could implicate the ’605 patent and engines that\\ndo not implicate the ’605 patent. Yet, GE provides no fur-\\nther details. It fails to provide an accounting for the addi-\\ntional research and development costs expended to design\\naround the ’605 patent. It provides no evidence that GE\\nactually designed a geared-fan engine or that these re-\\nsearch and development costs are tied to a demand by Boe-\\ning for a geared-fan engine. The only evidence that GE\\nactually designed a geared-fan engine is the engine that it\\ndesigned in the 1970s. Any economic loss deriving from the\\n1970s engine is not an imminent injury. See Lujan, 504\\nU.S. at 560 (stating that injury in fact must be actual or\\nimminent). Aside from a broad claim of research and de-\\nvelopment expenditures, GE has provided no evidence that\\nthese expenses were caused by the ’605 patent. See id. (re-\\nquiring “a causal connection between the injury and the\\nconduct complained of”). Therefore, GE’s broad claim of\\neconomic loss is insufficient to confer standing.\\n There is also no evidence that GE is in the process of\\ndesigning an engine covered by claims 7–11 of the ’605 pa-\\ntent. Nor has GE demonstrated that it has definite plans\\nto use the claimed features of the ’605 patent in the air-\\nplane engine market. See JTEKT, 898 F.3d at 1221 (hold-\\ning appellant lacked standing because it had not\\n\\n8 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES\\n CORP.\\n\\n\\nestablished that it had “concrete plans for future activity\\nthat creates a substantial risk of future infringement”).\\nUTC has not sued or threatened to sue GE for infringing\\nthe ’605 patent. Appellee Br. 36. Therefore, GE’s future\\nharm argument fails.\\n GE also contends that estoppel under 35 U.S.C.\\n§ 315(e) creates injury in fact for standing purposes. We\\nhave previously rejected the estoppel argument as a basis\\nfor Article III standing. Where, as here, the appellant does\\nnot currently practice the patent claims and the injury is\\nspeculative, we have held that the estoppel provision does\\nnot amount to an injury in fact. See, e.g., AVX Corp., 923\\nF.3d at 1362–63; Phigenix, 845 F.3d at 1175–76; Consumer\\nWatchdog v. Wis. Alumni Research Found., 753 F.3d 1258,\\n1262 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We see no need to reach a different\\nconclusion on this record.\\n CONCLUSION\\n We have considered GE’s remaining arguments and\\nfind them unpersuasive. We hold that GE lacks Article III\\nstanding to appeal the Board’s Final Written Decision and\\ntherefore dismiss the appeal.\\n DISMISSED\\n COSTS\\n No costs.\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2497\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-\\n00531.\\n ______________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4415235/\", \"author_raw\": \"REYNA, Circuit Judge.\"}, {\"author\": \"HUGHES, Circuit Judge, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"HUGHES, Circuit Judge, concurring.\\n Because our recent precedent compels holding that\\nGeneral Electric Company lacks Article III standing here,\\nI concur in the judgment. I write separately because I be-\\nlieve that precedent has developed an overly rigid and nar-\\nrow standard for Article III standing in the context of\\nappeals from inter partes review proceedings.\\n Our recent decision in AVX Corp. v. Presidio Compo-\\nnents, Inc., 923 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019), which I believe\\nwas incorrectly decided, takes a patent-specific approach to\\nthe doctrine of competitor standing that is out of step with\\nSupreme Court precedent. The Court has repeatedly held\\nthat government actions altering the competitive land-\\nscape of a market cause competitors probable economic\\n\\n2 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES\\n CORP.\\n\\n\\ninjury sufficient for Article III standing. And I do not be-\\nlieve that a Board decision erroneously upholding a com-\\npetitor’s patent in an IPR is meaningfully different from\\nthe type of government actions held to invoke competitor\\nstanding in those cases. Thus, absent our holding in AVX\\nCorp., I would conclude that GE possesses Article III stand-\\ning in this appeal.\\n I\\n The parties here are direct competitors in the commer-\\ncial aircraft turbofan engine market. GE, both itself and\\nthrough joint ventures, “designs, tests, certifies, manufac-\\ntures, and supplies aircraft engines” for major airplane\\nmanufacturers, or “airframers,” such as Boeing and Airbus.\\nDecl. of Alexander E. Long 2 ¶ 3, ECF No. 36. During the\\ndesign process, “airframers explain to GE their needs and\\nrequirements for turbofan engines, to enable GE to provide\\ncompetitive offerings that will satisfy the airframers’ re-\\nquirements.” Suppl. Decl. of Alexander E. Long 2 ¶ 3, ECF\\nNo. 64.\\n Due to the safety and regulatory requirements of the\\nturbofan engine market, “designing, developing, testing,\\nand certifying a new aircraft engine can take eight to ten\\nyears or longer.” Long Decl. 3 ¶ 6. And “[t]here is enor-\\nmous up-front investment required.” Long Decl. 4 ¶ 7. Ac-\\ncordingly, “new aircraft engine design work necessarily\\nbegins years before there is any commercial sale or offer for\\nsale of the final engine.” Long Decl. 4 ¶ 8.\\n According to GE, competition in the aircraft engine\\nmarket is fierce, and the market is dominated by three ma-\\njor players: GE, Universal Technologies Corporation, and\\nRolls-Royce. GE petitioned for IPR of a patent owned by\\nUTC. That patent is directed to a turbofan engine design\\n– the very type of technology over which GE and UTC\\nfiercely compete. The Board decided that GE failed to show\\nthat the challenged claims were unpatentable, and GE ap-\\npealed that decision to this Court.\\n\\nGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES 3\\nCORP.\\n\\n\\n UTC filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that\\nGE lacks Article III standing because GE does not produce\\nor plan to produce an engine that would infringe its patent.\\nRelying on precedent of both this Court and the Supreme\\nCourt, GE argued that the Board’s decision to uphold UT’s\\npatent caused GE a concrete competitive injury sufficient\\nto satisfy Article III standing.\\n II\\n The sole issue with respect to standing in this case is\\nwhether GE has shown that it has suffered an injury-in-\\nfact. An injury-in-fact requires a party to establish “an in-\\nvasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete\\nand particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjec-\\ntural or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S.\\n555, 560 (1992) (internal quotation marks and citations\\nomitted). This requirement “ensure[s] that the plaintiffs\\nhave a stake in the fight and will therefore diligently pros-\\necute the case . . . while, at the same time, ensuring that\\nthe claim is not abstract or conjectural so that resolution\\nby the judiciary is both manageable and proper.” Cana-\\ndian Lumber Trade All. v. United States, 517 F.3d 1319,\\n1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted);\\nsee also Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497, 517 (2007)\\n(“At bottom, ‘the gist of the question of standing’ is whether\\npetitioners have ‘such a personal stake in the outcome of\\nthe controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness\\nwhich sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the\\ncourt so largely depends for illumination.’” (quoting Baker\\nv. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962))). But “[i]njury-in-fact is\\nnot Mount Everest.” Canadian Lumber, 517 F.3d at 1333\\n(quoting Danvers Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 432 F.3d\\n286, 294 (3d Cir. 2005)); accord Bowman v. Wilson, 672\\nF.2d 1145, 1151 (3d Cir. 1982) (“The contours of the injury-\\nin-fact requirement, while not precisely defined, are very\\ngenerous.”).\\n\\n4 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES\\n CORP.\\n\\n\\n Many of our recent cases dealing with injury-in-fact in\\nIPR appeals have focused on the appellant/petitioner’s like-\\nlihood of facing a future infringement suit. See JTEKT\\nCorp. v. GKN Auto. LTD., 898 F.3d 1217, 1220 (Fed. Cir.\\n2018) (noting that “typically in order to demonstrate the\\nrequisite injury in an IPR appeal, the appellant/petitioner\\nmust show that it is engaged or will likely engage ‘in an[ ]\\nactivity that would give rise to a possible infringement\\nsuit,’ . . . or has contractual rights that are affected by a\\ndetermination of patent validity” (quoting Consumer\\nWatchdog v. Wis. Alumni Research Found., 753 F.3d 1258,\\n1262 (Fed. Cir. 2014))); see also Momenta Pharm., Inc. v.\\nBristol-Myers Squibb Co., 915 F.3d 764, 769–70 (Fed. Cir.\\n2019) (holding that an IPR petitioner lacked standing be-\\ncause it had abandoned its plans for developing a poten-\\ntially infringing product, so it no longer faced a potential\\ninfringement suit); E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v.\\nSynvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding\\nthat an IPR petitioner had suffered an injury in fact be-\\ncause it “currently operates a plant capable of infringing”\\nthe challenged patent); Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc.,\\n845 F.3d 1168, 1173–74 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that appel-\\nlant “does not contend that it faces risk of infringing the\\n[challenged] patent, that it is an actual or prospective li-\\ncensee of the patent, or that it otherwise plans to take any\\naction that would implicate the patent”); Consumer Watch-\\ndog, 753 F.3d at 1262 (noting that the appellant/petitioner\\n“is not engaged in any activity that would give rise to a pos-\\nsible infringement suit”). But these cases do not suggest\\nthat the only means for an IPR petitioner to establish in-\\njury-in-fact is to show a reasonable likelihood of an immi-\\nnent infringement suit. Such a reading would conflate the\\ninjury-in-fact analysis with the “reasonable apprehension\\nof imminent suit” test for declaratory judgment jurisdic-\\ntion, which the Supreme Court overruled. See MedIm-\\nmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 132 n. 11 (2007)\\n(noting that the “reasonable apprehension of suit” test con-\\nflicts with Supreme Court precedent); see also ABB Inc. v.\\n\\nGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES 5\\nCORP.\\n\\n\\nCooper Indus., LLC, 635 F.3d 1345, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011)\\n(recognizing that MedImmune rejected the requirement of\\na “reasonable apprehension of imminent suit” to establish\\ndeclaratory judgment jurisdiction).\\n The risk of a future infringement suit is not the only\\nway an IPR petitioner can show injury-in-fact. “The [Su-\\npreme Court] routinely recognizes probable economic in-\\njury resulting from [government actions] that alter\\ncompetitive conditions as sufficient to satisfy the [Article\\nIII injury-in-fact requirement].” 3 K. Davis & R. Pierce,\\nAdministrative Law Treatise 13–14 (3d ed. 1994); see also\\nClinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 433 (1998) (citing\\nDavid & Pierce, supra, at 13–14). This Court’s recent deci-\\nsion in AVX Corp. addressed the competitor standing doc-\\ntrine in IPR appeals. We held that a patent could cause an\\nIPR petitioner competitive harm if the petitioner “was cur-\\nrently using the claimed features [of the challenged patent]\\nor nonspeculatively planning to do so in competition.” AVX\\nCorp., 923 F.3d at 1365. But if the petitioner is not cur-\\nrently engaged in infringing activity and has no concrete\\nplans to do so in the imminent future, we held that the\\nBoard’s decision to uphold a challenged patent does not in-\\nvoke the competitor standing doctrine. Id.\\n Thus, even when the parties are direct competitors, our\\ncases require an unsuccessful IPR appellant/petitioner to\\nshow concrete current or future plans to infringe the chal-\\nlenged patent. I do not believe that Article III requires\\nsuch a showing, particularly where Congress has provided\\nIPR petitioners a procedural right of appeal. See 35 U.S.C.\\n§ 141; see also Consumer Watchdog, 753 F.3d at 1261 (rec-\\nognizing that “where Congress has accorded a procedural\\nright to a litigant, such as the right to appeal an adminis-\\ntrative decision, certain requirements of standing—namely\\nimmediacy and redressability, as well as prudential as-\\npects that are not part of Article III—may be relaxed”).\\n\\n6 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES\\n CORP.\\n\\n\\n AVX Corp. found that the “government action at issue\\n[in IPR] is quite different” from the government action in\\nother cases applying competitor standing. AVX Corp., 923\\nF.3d at 1365. According to AVX Corp., the “feature-specific\\nexclusivity right [of a patent] does not, by the operation of\\nordinary economic forces, naturally harm a firm just be-\\ncause it is a competitor in the same market as the benefi-\\nciary of the government action (the patentee).” Id. This\\nanalysis sets patents apart from other applications of com-\\npetitor standing on the basis that a patent’s exclusivity\\nright is different than other interests. The Supreme Court,\\nhowever, has made clear that “[p]atent law is governed by\\nthe same common-law principles, methods of statutory in-\\nterpretation, and procedural rules as other areas of civil\\nlitigation.” SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality\\nBaby Prods., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 954, 964 (2017) (internal quo-\\ntation marks omitted).\\n Our patent-specific treatment of competitor standing is\\nout of step with its application in other areas. The Su-\\npreme Court has repeatedly found standing where govern-\\nment action subjects the plaintiff to increased competition\\nbecause of the probable economic injury that accompanies\\nit. See Clinton, 524 U.S. at 433; Ass’n of Data Processing\\nServ. Orgs., Inc., 397 U.S 150, 152 (1970); Inv. Co. Inst. v.\\nCamp, 401 U.S. 617, 620 (1971); accord Canadian Lumber,\\n517 F.3d at 1334; La. Energy & Power Auth. v. FERC, 141\\nF.3d 364, 367 (D.C. Cir. 1998). In Data Processing, for ex-\\nample, the petitioners – organizations who sold data pro-\\ncessing services to businesses – challenged a ruling by the\\nComptroller of Currency that allowed national banks to\\nprovide data processing services to other banks and bank\\ncustomers. 397 U.S. at 151. The Supreme Court held that\\nthe Comptroller’s ruling caused petitioners an injury-in-\\nfact because the resulting increase in competition would\\nlikely cause petitioners future economic harm. Id. at 152.\\nSimilarly, in Clinton the Supreme Court held that a farm-\\ners’ cooperative suffered a concrete injury when the\\n\\nGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES 7\\nCORP.\\n\\n\\npresident cancelled a tax benefit enacted to facilitate the\\npurchase of processing plants by such cooperatives. 524\\nU.S. at 432. The Court found that “[b]y depriving [the co-\\noperative] of their statutory bargaining chip, the cancella-\\ntion inflicted a sufficient likelihood of economic injury to\\nestablish standing under our precedents.” Id.\\n In both Data Processing and Clinton, the government\\naction subjected the challenger to increased competition.\\nThe exclusionary right of a patent, however, allows the pa-\\ntent owner to exclude others from competing in its market.\\nBut like an action that increases competition, government\\naction that excludes an appellant from effectively compet-\\ning in a market, such as erroneously upholding its compet-\\nitor’s patent, provides a benefit to the competitor and\\ncauses competitive harm to the appellant that presump-\\ntively leads to economic injury. See Canadian Lumber, 517\\nF.3d 1332 (noting that competitor standing “relies on eco-\\nnomic logic to conclude that a plaintiff will likely suffer an\\ninjury-in-fact when the government acts in a way that in-\\ncreases competition or aids the plaintiff's competitors” (em-\\nphasis added)). Thus, I do not believe there is any sound\\nbasis for AVX Corp.’s patent-specific treatment of the com-\\npetitor standing doctrine.\\n The facts of this case further demonstrate why AVX\\nCorp.’s patent-specific approach is incorrect. GE and UTC\\nare direct competitors in a fiercely competitive market that\\nrequires significant up-front investment years before any\\nprofits can be realized. During the engine design process,\\n“airframers explain to GE their needs and requirements for\\nturbofan engines, to enable GE to provide competitive of-\\nferings that will satisfy the airframers’ requirements.”\\nLong Suppl. Decl. at 2 ¶ 3. According to GE, one such air-\\nframer specifically requested that GE research an engine\\ndesign that would implicate UTC’s patent. But at least un-\\ntil that patent expires, GE cannot design and produce such\\nan engine without risking infringement. Thus, UTC’s pa-\\ntent effectively precludes GE from meeting its customer’s\\n\\n8 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES\\n CORP.\\n\\n\\ndesign needs without spending additional resources to de-\\nsign around the patent. 1 I fail to see how this costly com-\\npetitive burden does not constitute a “concrete and\\nparticularized” harm to GE. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.\\nAnd GE certainly has a “personal stake in the outcome of\\nth[is] controversy,” which concerns the validity of a patent\\nowned by its direct competitor covering technology over\\nwhich the parties compete. E.P.A., 549 U.S. at 517 (inter-\\nnal quotation marks omitted).\\n Finally, as the majority correctly notes, we have re-\\npeatedly held that the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C.\\n§ 315(e), standing alone, do not create an injury. Maj. Op.\\n8. But the effects of that estoppel have especially signifi-\\ncant impact where the parties are direct competitors. Un-\\nlike the appellant/petitioners in Consumer Watchdog or\\nPhigenix, who did not manufacture or sell products in the\\nmarket involving the patented technology, see Consumer\\nWatchdog, 753 F.3d at 1260; Phigenix, 845 F.3d at 1171,\\nGE is one of three major actors in the turbofan engine mar-\\nket. Although we have not decided whether § 315(e) would\\nestop an IPR petitioner who lacked standing to appeal an\\nunfavorable Board decision, see AVX Corp., 923 F.3d at\\n1363, until we do, UTC’s patent is an even greater compet-\\nitive deterrent for GE. GE faces uncertainty as to whether\\nit is estopped from raising an invalidity defense on any\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 In Biotechnology Industry Organization v. District\\nof Columbia, we found that “[w]hether the Act is enforced\\nor not,” pharmaceutical manufacturers challenging a stat-\\nute that penalized selling prescription drugs at “excessive\\nprice[s]” could demonstrate injury-in-fact due to the “actual\\nadministrative costs” they would necessarily incur in com-\\nplying with the statute. 496 F.3d 1362, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir.\\n2007). Those “actual administrative costs” are analogous\\nto the increased research and design costs that GE has al-\\nlegedly suffered due to UTC’s patent.\\n\\nGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES 9\\nCORP.\\n\\n\\nground “that [it] raised or reasonably could have raised\\nduring” its IPR. See § 315(e)(2). This uncertainty makes\\nfacing potential infringement litigation significantly more\\nimpactful on GE’s future design choices. Thus, while I\\nagree that 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) estoppel alone does not create\\nan injury-in-fact, its potential effects in this case under-\\nscore the problems with our increasingly narrow approach\\nto Article III standing.\\n Absent AVX Corp., which I believe was incorrectly de-\\ncided, I would conclude that GE has established Article III\\nstanding to appeal the Board’s adverse decision. Because\\nI am bound by that precedent, however, I respectfully con-\\ncur only in the judgment.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4415235/\", \"author_raw\": \"HUGHES, Circuit Judge, concurring\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"REYNA"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"TARANTO"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"HUGHES"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":4,"string":"4"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637982/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellant v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Appellee\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-10\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,\n Appellant\n\n v.\n\n UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,\n Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2017-2497\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-\n00531.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: July 10, 2019\n ______________________\n\n BRIAN E. FERGUSON, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP,\nWashington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented\nby STEPHEN BOSCO, CHRISTOPHER PEPE; ANISH R. DESAI,\nNew York, NY.\n\n MICHAEL VALAIK, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar &\nScott LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also repre-\nsented by PATRICK JOSEPH COYNE, MICHAEL ANDREW\nHOLTMAN, SYDNEY KESTLE, JEFFREY CURTISS TOTTEN, Fin-\nnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP,\nWashington, DC; BENJAMIN AARON SAIDMAN, Atlanta, GA.\n ______________________\n\n2 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES\n CORP.\n\n\n\n\n Before REYNA, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.\n Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge REYNA.\n Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge HUGHES.\nREYNA, Circuit Judge.\n General Electric Company petitioned the United\nStates Patent Trial and Appeal Board for inter partes re-\nview of U.S. Patent No. 8,511,605. United Technologies\nCorporation is the assignee of the patent. The Board found\nthe claims not obvious in view of the prior art. General\nElectric appeals. For the reasons discussed below, we hold\nthat General Electric lacks Article III standing and accord-\ningly, we dismiss the appeal.\n BACKGROUND\n Appellee United Technologies Corporation (“UTC”) is\nthe assignee of U.S. Patent No. 8,511,605 (“the ’605 pa-\ntent”). The ’605 patent is generally directed to a gas tur-\nbine engine having a gear train driven by a spool with a\nlow stage count low pressure turbine. ’605 patent, Ab-\nstract. This particular gas turbine engine is designed for\nuse in airplanes and has an axially movable variable area\nfan nozzle.\n On January 29, 2016, General Electric Company\n(“GE”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) chal-\nlenging claims 1 and 2 of the ’605 patent on grounds of an-\nticipation and claims 7–11 of the ’605 patent on grounds of\nobviousness. After institution, UTC disclaimed claims 1\nand 2, leaving only claims 7–11 at issue. On June 26, 2017,\nthe United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”)\nissued a Final Written Decision concluding that the pre-\nponderance of the evidence did not show claims 7–11 of the\n’605 patent to be unpatentable for obviousness. GE timely\nappealed to this court.\n\nGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES 3\nCORP.\n\n\n On December 29, 2017, UTC moved to dismiss GE’s ap-\npeal for lack of standing. UTC asserted that GE lacked\nstanding because it failed to demonstrate a sufficient in-\njury in fact. In support, UTC pointed to this court’s deci-\nsions holding that an appellant does not automatically\npossess standing to appeal an adverse Board decision by\nvirtue of serving its petitions in the challenged IPR. GE\nsubmitted a response on January 16, 2018, including the\nDeclaration of Alexander E. Long, GE’s Chief IP Counsel\nand General Counsel of Engineering for GE Aviation\n(“First Long Declaration”). Mr. Long explained that the\ncommercial aircraft engine business operates on a long life-\ncycle and that airplane engines are designed to meet cer-\ntain specifications for certain aircraft. Because the design\nof aircraft engines can take eight years or more, GE devel-\nops new engines based on old designs. Mr. Long stated\nthat, in the 1970s, GE developed a geared turbofan engine\nwith a variable area fan nozzle for NASA. GE asserted that\nthe ’605 patent impedes its ability to use its 1970s geared-\nfan engine design as a basis for developing and marketing\nfuture geared turbofan engine designs with a variable area\nfan nozzle, thereby limiting the scope of GE’s engine de-\nsigns and its ability to compete in a highly regulated indus-\ntry. Mr. Long also declared that designing around the ’605\npatent restricts GE’s design choices and forced GE to incur\nadditional research and development expenses.\n We denied UTC’s motion without addressing the mer-\nits and ordered UTC to brief the issue in its responsive ap-\npellate brief. The parties subsequently briefed the\nstanding issue. GE argued that the injuries it suffered in-\nclude statutory estoppel, economic loss, future threat of lit-\nigation, and competitive harm. GE relied on the First Long\nDeclaration as evidence to show its injuries. UTC argued\nthat GE suffered no injury in fact because: (1) UTC has not\nsued or threatened to sue GE for infringement of the ’605\npatent; (2) GE does not offer evidence of a concrete and par-\nticularized economic injury because it has not developed an\n\n4 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES\n CORP.\n\n\nengine that implicates claims 7–11 of the ’605 patent; and\n(3) statutory estoppel and the competitive standing doc-\ntrine do not apply to GE.\n We heard oral argument on November 7, 2018. Much\nof oral argument focused on whether GE had constitutional\nstanding to appeal and whether general statements made\nin the First Long Declaration were sufficient to establish\nstanding. We subsequently ordered GE to supplement the\nFirst Long Declaration and submit any additional declara-\ntions that would provide greater specificity regarding the\nasserted injury GE contends provides sufficient standing to\nappeal in this matter. We provided UTC with an oppor-\ntunity to respond.\n Each party filed its supplemental submission. GE filed\nan additional declaration from Mr. Long on November 28,\n2018 (“Second Long Declaration”). In his second declara-\ntion, Mr. Long stated that Boeing requested information\nfrom GE and several of its competitors for engine designs\nfor future Boeing aircrafts. Mr. Long also noted that Boe-\ning requested information regarding designs for both\ngeared-fan engines and direct-drive engines.\n In response to Boeing’s request, GE researched a\ngeared-fan engine design that “would potentially implicate\n[UTC’s] 605 Patent.” Second Long Decl. ¶ 5. GE asserts it\n“expended time and money researching and further devel-\noping” this technology for the potential business oppor-\ntunity with Boeing. Id. ¶ 7. Ultimately, GE chose not to\nsubmit to Boeing a geared-fan engine design and instead\nsubmitted a design for a direct-drive engine of the type\nused in GE’s current engine designs. The record does not\nindicate why GE submitted a direct-drive engine design in-\nstead of a geared-fan engine design. Nor does Mr. Long\nstate whether GE lost this particular bid. He contends only\nthat to maintain GE’s competitive position, it needs to be\nable to meet customer needs with a geared-fan engine de-\nsign that may implicate the ’605 patent.\n\nGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES 5\nCORP.\n\n\n DISCUSSION\n Not every party to an IPR will have Article III standing\nto appeal a final written decision of the Board. See Phige-\nnix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., 845 F.3d 1168, 1172 (Fed. Cir.\n2017) (citing Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.\n2131, 2143–44 (2016)). To establish standing, an appellant\nmust have suffered an injury in fact that has a nexus to the\nchallenged conduct and that can be ameliorated by the\ncourt. Id. at 1171 (citing Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct.\n1540, 1545 (2016)). The injury in fact must be “concrete\nand particularized,” not merely “conjectural or hypothet-\nical.” JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Auto. Ltd., 898 F.3d 1217, 1220\n(Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis omitted) (first quoting Spokeo,\n136 S. Ct. at 1545, and then quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wild-\nlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)).\n GE has the burden of showing that it suffered an injury\nin fact sufficient to confer Article III standing to appeal.\nSee DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342\n(2006). It is undisputed that GE did not establish before\nthe Board that it had standing to appeal the Board’s Final\nWritten Decision. See JTEKT, 898 F.3d at 1220. There-\nfore, GE must create a record in this court with the “requi-\nsite proof of an injury in fact” sufficient to show that it has\nstanding to appeal. Id. (quoting Phigenix, 845 F.3d at\n1171–72). As a result, GE has submitted two declarations\nfrom Mr. Long and has proffered three theories of harm to\nsupport standing: (1) competitive harm; (2) economic\nlosses; and (3) estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). For the\nreasons stated below, we reject GE’s arguments.\n GE’s purported competitive injuries are too speculative\nto support constitutional standing. See Phigenix, 845 F.3d\nat 1171 (stating that the injury must be real or imminent).\nMr. Long’s declarations are the only evidence of standing\nbefore the court, and neither shows a concrete and immi-\nnent injury to GE related to the ’605 patent. Mr. Long does\nnot assert that GE lost bids to customers because it could\n\n6 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES\n CORP.\n\n\noffer only a direct-drive engine design. Nor does Mr. Long\nattest that GE submitted a direct-drive engine design to\nBoeing because of the ’605 patent. Mr. Long contends only\nthat GE expended some unspecified amount of time and\nmoney to consider engine designs that could potentially im-\nplicate the ’605 patent. Boeing may have asked for infor-\nmation regarding a possible geared-fan engine design, but\nthere is no evidence that Boeing demanded or required an\nengine covered by claims 7–11 of the ’605 patent, and there\nis no indication that GE lost the Boeing bid. The evidence\nshows that GE submitted to Boeing a direct-drive engine\ndesign, but there is no indication as to why it opted not to\nsubmit a geared-fan engine design. There is also no evi-\ndence that GE lost business or lost opportunities because it\ncould not deliver a geared-fan engine covered by the upheld\nclaims or any evidence that prospective bids require\ngeared-fan engine designs. GE asserts only speculative\nharm untethered to the ’605 patent. Without a real, par-\nticularized injury, GE lacks standing to appeal the IPR de-\ncision.\n We recently addressed the “competitor standing” doc-\ntrine in AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., 923 F.3d\n1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019). There, we concluded that the appel-\nlant lacked Article III standing because it had “no present\nor nonspeculative interest in engaging in conduct even ar-\nguably covered by the patent claims at issue.” Id. at 1363.\nWe explained that competitor standing has been found\nwhen government action alters competitive conditions. Id.\nat 1364 (citing Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417,\n433 (1998)). In those circumstances, the government “pro-\nvides benefits to an existing competitor or expands the\nnumber of entrants in the petitioner’s market, not an\nagency action that is, at most, the first step in the direction\nof future competition.” Id. at 1364 (quoting New World Ra-\ndio, Inc. v. FCC, 294 F.3d 164, 172 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).\n For the competitor standing doctrine to apply, the gov-\nernment action must change the competitive landscape by,\n\nGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES 7\nCORP.\n\n\nfor example, creating new benefits to competitors. Put an-\nother way, the government action must alter the status quo\nof the field of competition. Here, the Board’s upholding of\nclaims 7–11 of the ’605 patent did not change the competi-\ntive landscape for commercial airplane engines. See id.\n(“The government action is the upholding of specific patent\nclaims, which do not address prices or introduce new com-\npetitors, but rather give exclusivity rights over precisely\ndefined product features.”). Therefore, we see no competi-\ntive harm to GE sufficient to establish standing to appeal.\n We similarly reject GE’s economic losses argument.\nGE contends that it has been injured by increased research\nand development costs sustained by attempts to design en-\ngines that could implicate the ’605 patent and engines that\ndo not implicate the ’605 patent. Yet, GE provides no fur-\nther details. It fails to provide an accounting for the addi-\ntional research and development costs expended to design\naround the ’605 patent. It provides no evidence that GE\nactually designed a geared-fan engine or that these re-\nsearch and development costs are tied to a demand by Boe-\ning for a geared-fan engine. The only evidence that GE\nactually designed a geared-fan engine is the engine that it\ndesigned in the 1970s. Any economic loss deriving from the\n1970s engine is not an imminent injury. See Lujan, 504\nU.S. at 560 (stating that injury in fact must be actual or\nimminent). Aside from a broad claim of research and de-\nvelopment expenditures, GE has provided no evidence that\nthese expenses were caused by the ’605 patent. See id. (re-\nquiring “a causal connection between the injury and the\nconduct complained of”). Therefore, GE’s broad claim of\neconomic loss is insufficient to confer standing.\n There is also no evidence that GE is in the process of\ndesigning an engine covered by claims 7–11 of the ’605 pa-\ntent. Nor has GE demonstrated that it has definite plans\nto use the claimed features of the ’605 patent in the air-\nplane engine market. See JTEKT, 898 F.3d at 1221 (hold-\ning appellant lacked standing because it had not\n\n8 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES\n CORP.\n\n\nestablished that it had “concrete plans for future activity\nthat creates a substantial risk of future infringement”).\nUTC has not sued or threatened to sue GE for infringing\nthe ’605 patent. Appellee Br. 36. Therefore, GE’s future\nharm argument fails.\n GE also contends that estoppel under 35 U.S.C.\n§ 315(e) creates injury in fact for standing purposes. We\nhave previously rejected the estoppel argument as a basis\nfor Article III standing. Where, as here, the appellant does\nnot currently practice the patent claims and the injury is\nspeculative, we have held that the estoppel provision does\nnot amount to an injury in fact. See, e.g., AVX Corp., 923\nF.3d at 1362–63; Phigenix, 845 F.3d at 1175–76; Consumer\nWatchdog v. Wis. Alumni Research Found., 753 F.3d 1258,\n1262 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We see no need to reach a different\nconclusion on this record.\n CONCLUSION\n We have considered GE’s remaining arguments and\nfind them unpersuasive. We hold that GE lacks Article III\nstanding to appeal the Board’s Final Written Decision and\ntherefore dismiss the appeal.\n DISMISSED\n COSTS\n No costs.\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,\n Appellant\n\n v.\n\n UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,\n Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2017-2497\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-\n00531.\n ______________________\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellant v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Appellee\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-10\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2497\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-\\n00531.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 10, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n BRIAN E. FERGUSON, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP,\\nWashington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented\\nby STEPHEN BOSCO, CHRISTOPHER PEPE; ANISH R. DESAI,\\nNew York, NY.\\n\\n MICHAEL VALAIK, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar &\\nScott LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also repre-\\nsented by PATRICK JOSEPH COYNE, MICHAEL ANDREW\\nHOLTMAN, SYDNEY KESTLE, JEFFREY CURTISS TOTTEN, Fin-\\nnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP,\\nWashington, DC; BENJAMIN AARON SAIDMAN, Atlanta, GA.\\n ______________________\\n\\n2 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES\\n CORP.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Before REYNA, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.\\n Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge REYNA.\\n Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge HUGHES.\\nREYNA, Circuit Judge.\\n General Electric Company petitioned the United\\nStates Patent Trial and Appeal Board for inter partes re-\\nview of U.S. Patent No. 8,511,605. United Technologies\\nCorporation is the assignee of the patent. The Board found\\nthe claims not obvious in view of the prior art. General\\nElectric appeals. For the reasons discussed below, we hold\\nthat General Electric lacks Article III standing and accord-\\ningly, we dismiss the appeal.\\n BACKGROUND\\n Appellee United Technologies Corporation (“UTC”) is\\nthe assignee of U.S. Patent No. 8,511,605 (“the ’605 pa-\\ntent”). The ’605 patent is generally directed to a gas tur-\\nbine engine having a gear train driven by a spool with a\\nlow stage count low pressure turbine. ’605 patent, Ab-\\nstract. This particular gas turbine engine is designed for\\nuse in airplanes and has an axially movable variable area\\nfan nozzle.\\n On January 29, 2016, General Electric Company\\n(“GE”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) chal-\\nlenging claims 1 and 2 of the ’605 patent on grounds of an-\\nticipation and claims 7–11 of the ’605 patent on grounds of\\nobviousness. After institution, UTC disclaimed claims 1\\nand 2, leaving only claims 7–11 at issue. On June 26, 2017,\\nthe United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”)\\nissued a Final Written Decision concluding that the pre-\\nponderance of the evidence did not show claims 7–11 of the\\n’605 patent to be unpatentable for obviousness. GE timely\\nappealed to this court.\\n\\nGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES 3\\nCORP.\\n\\n\\n On December 29, 2017, UTC moved to dismiss GE’s ap-\\npeal for lack of standing. UTC asserted that GE lacked\\nstanding because it failed to demonstrate a sufficient in-\\njury in fact. In support, UTC pointed to this court’s deci-\\nsions holding that an appellant does not automatically\\npossess standing to appeal an adverse Board decision by\\nvirtue of serving its petitions in the challenged IPR. GE\\nsubmitted a response on January 16, 2018, including the\\nDeclaration of Alexander E. Long, GE’s Chief IP Counsel\\nand General Counsel of Engineering for GE Aviation\\n(“First Long Declaration”). Mr. Long explained that the\\ncommercial aircraft engine business operates on a long life-\\ncycle and that airplane engines are designed to meet cer-\\ntain specifications for certain aircraft. Because the design\\nof aircraft engines can take eight years or more, GE devel-\\nops new engines based on old designs. Mr. Long stated\\nthat, in the 1970s, GE developed a geared turbofan engine\\nwith a variable area fan nozzle for NASA. GE asserted that\\nthe ’605 patent impedes its ability to use its 1970s geared-\\nfan engine design as a basis for developing and marketing\\nfuture geared turbofan engine designs with a variable area\\nfan nozzle, thereby limiting the scope of GE’s engine de-\\nsigns and its ability to compete in a highly regulated indus-\\ntry. Mr. Long also declared that designing around the ’605\\npatent restricts GE’s design choices and forced GE to incur\\nadditional research and development expenses.\\n We denied UTC’s motion without addressing the mer-\\nits and ordered UTC to brief the issue in its responsive ap-\\npellate brief. The parties subsequently briefed the\\nstanding issue. GE argued that the injuries it suffered in-\\nclude statutory estoppel, economic loss, future threat of lit-\\nigation, and competitive harm. GE relied on the First Long\\nDeclaration as evidence to show its injuries. UTC argued\\nthat GE suffered no injury in fact because: (1) UTC has not\\nsued or threatened to sue GE for infringement of the ’605\\npatent; (2) GE does not offer evidence of a concrete and par-\\nticularized economic injury because it has not developed an\\n\\n4 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES\\n CORP.\\n\\n\\nengine that implicates claims 7–11 of the ’605 patent; and\\n(3) statutory estoppel and the competitive standing doc-\\ntrine do not apply to GE.\\n We heard oral argument on November 7, 2018. Much\\nof oral argument focused on whether GE had constitutional\\nstanding to appeal and whether general statements made\\nin the First Long Declaration were sufficient to establish\\nstanding. We subsequently ordered GE to supplement the\\nFirst Long Declaration and submit any additional declara-\\ntions that would provide greater specificity regarding the\\nasserted injury GE contends provides sufficient standing to\\nappeal in this matter. We provided UTC with an oppor-\\ntunity to respond.\\n Each party filed its supplemental submission. GE filed\\nan additional declaration from Mr. Long on November 28,\\n2018 (“Second Long Declaration”). In his second declara-\\ntion, Mr. Long stated that Boeing requested information\\nfrom GE and several of its competitors for engine designs\\nfor future Boeing aircrafts. Mr. Long also noted that Boe-\\ning requested information regarding designs for both\\ngeared-fan engines and direct-drive engines.\\n In response to Boeing’s request, GE researched a\\ngeared-fan engine design that “would potentially implicate\\n[UTC’s] 605 Patent.” Second Long Decl. ¶ 5. GE asserts it\\n“expended time and money researching and further devel-\\noping” this technology for the potential business oppor-\\ntunity with Boeing. Id. ¶ 7. Ultimately, GE chose not to\\nsubmit to Boeing a geared-fan engine design and instead\\nsubmitted a design for a direct-drive engine of the type\\nused in GE’s current engine designs. The record does not\\nindicate why GE submitted a direct-drive engine design in-\\nstead of a geared-fan engine design. Nor does Mr. Long\\nstate whether GE lost this particular bid. He contends only\\nthat to maintain GE’s competitive position, it needs to be\\nable to meet customer needs with a geared-fan engine de-\\nsign that may implicate the ’605 patent.\\n\\nGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES 5\\nCORP.\\n\\n\\n DISCUSSION\\n Not every party to an IPR will have Article III standing\\nto appeal a final written decision of the Board. See Phige-\\nnix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., 845 F.3d 1168, 1172 (Fed. Cir.\\n2017) (citing Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.\\n2131, 2143–44 (2016)). To establish standing, an appellant\\nmust have suffered an injury in fact that has a nexus to the\\nchallenged conduct and that can be ameliorated by the\\ncourt. Id. at 1171 (citing Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct.\\n1540, 1545 (2016)). The injury in fact must be “concrete\\nand particularized,” not merely “conjectural or hypothet-\\nical.” JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Auto. Ltd., 898 F.3d 1217, 1220\\n(Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis omitted) (first quoting Spokeo,\\n136 S. Ct. at 1545, and then quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wild-\\nlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)).\\n GE has the burden of showing that it suffered an injury\\nin fact sufficient to confer Article III standing to appeal.\\nSee DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342\\n(2006). It is undisputed that GE did not establish before\\nthe Board that it had standing to appeal the Board’s Final\\nWritten Decision. See JTEKT, 898 F.3d at 1220. There-\\nfore, GE must create a record in this court with the “requi-\\nsite proof of an injury in fact” sufficient to show that it has\\nstanding to appeal. Id. (quoting Phigenix, 845 F.3d at\\n1171–72). As a result, GE has submitted two declarations\\nfrom Mr. Long and has proffered three theories of harm to\\nsupport standing: (1) competitive harm; (2) economic\\nlosses; and (3) estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). For the\\nreasons stated below, we reject GE’s arguments.\\n GE’s purported competitive injuries are too speculative\\nto support constitutional standing. See Phigenix, 845 F.3d\\nat 1171 (stating that the injury must be real or imminent).\\nMr. Long’s declarations are the only evidence of standing\\nbefore the court, and neither shows a concrete and immi-\\nnent injury to GE related to the ’605 patent. Mr. Long does\\nnot assert that GE lost bids to customers because it could\\n\\n6 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES\\n CORP.\\n\\n\\noffer only a direct-drive engine design. Nor does Mr. Long\\nattest that GE submitted a direct-drive engine design to\\nBoeing because of the ’605 patent. Mr. Long contends only\\nthat GE expended some unspecified amount of time and\\nmoney to consider engine designs that could potentially im-\\nplicate the ’605 patent. Boeing may have asked for infor-\\nmation regarding a possible geared-fan engine design, but\\nthere is no evidence that Boeing demanded or required an\\nengine covered by claims 7–11 of the ’605 patent, and there\\nis no indication that GE lost the Boeing bid. The evidence\\nshows that GE submitted to Boeing a direct-drive engine\\ndesign, but there is no indication as to why it opted not to\\nsubmit a geared-fan engine design. There is also no evi-\\ndence that GE lost business or lost opportunities because it\\ncould not deliver a geared-fan engine covered by the upheld\\nclaims or any evidence that prospective bids require\\ngeared-fan engine designs. GE asserts only speculative\\nharm untethered to the ’605 patent. Without a real, par-\\nticularized injury, GE lacks standing to appeal the IPR de-\\ncision.\\n We recently addressed the “competitor standing” doc-\\ntrine in AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., 923 F.3d\\n1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019). There, we concluded that the appel-\\nlant lacked Article III standing because it had “no present\\nor nonspeculative interest in engaging in conduct even ar-\\nguably covered by the patent claims at issue.” Id. at 1363.\\nWe explained that competitor standing has been found\\nwhen government action alters competitive conditions. Id.\\nat 1364 (citing Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417,\\n433 (1998)). In those circumstances, the government “pro-\\nvides benefits to an existing competitor or expands the\\nnumber of entrants in the petitioner’s market, not an\\nagency action that is, at most, the first step in the direction\\nof future competition.” Id. at 1364 (quoting New World Ra-\\ndio, Inc. v. FCC, 294 F.3d 164, 172 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).\\n For the competitor standing doctrine to apply, the gov-\\nernment action must change the competitive landscape by,\\n\\nGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES 7\\nCORP.\\n\\n\\nfor example, creating new benefits to competitors. Put an-\\nother way, the government action must alter the status quo\\nof the field of competition. Here, the Board’s upholding of\\nclaims 7–11 of the ’605 patent did not change the competi-\\ntive landscape for commercial airplane engines. See id.\\n(“The government action is the upholding of specific patent\\nclaims, which do not address prices or introduce new com-\\npetitors, but rather give exclusivity rights over precisely\\ndefined product features.”). Therefore, we see no competi-\\ntive harm to GE sufficient to establish standing to appeal.\\n We similarly reject GE’s economic losses argument.\\nGE contends that it has been injured by increased research\\nand development costs sustained by attempts to design en-\\ngines that could implicate the ’605 patent and engines that\\ndo not implicate the ’605 patent. Yet, GE provides no fur-\\nther details. It fails to provide an accounting for the addi-\\ntional research and development costs expended to design\\naround the ’605 patent. It provides no evidence that GE\\nactually designed a geared-fan engine or that these re-\\nsearch and development costs are tied to a demand by Boe-\\ning for a geared-fan engine. The only evidence that GE\\nactually designed a geared-fan engine is the engine that it\\ndesigned in the 1970s. Any economic loss deriving from the\\n1970s engine is not an imminent injury. See Lujan, 504\\nU.S. at 560 (stating that injury in fact must be actual or\\nimminent). Aside from a broad claim of research and de-\\nvelopment expenditures, GE has provided no evidence that\\nthese expenses were caused by the ’605 patent. See id. (re-\\nquiring “a causal connection between the injury and the\\nconduct complained of”). Therefore, GE’s broad claim of\\neconomic loss is insufficient to confer standing.\\n There is also no evidence that GE is in the process of\\ndesigning an engine covered by claims 7–11 of the ’605 pa-\\ntent. Nor has GE demonstrated that it has definite plans\\nto use the claimed features of the ’605 patent in the air-\\nplane engine market. See JTEKT, 898 F.3d at 1221 (hold-\\ning appellant lacked standing because it had not\\n\\n8 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES\\n CORP.\\n\\n\\nestablished that it had “concrete plans for future activity\\nthat creates a substantial risk of future infringement”).\\nUTC has not sued or threatened to sue GE for infringing\\nthe ’605 patent. Appellee Br. 36. Therefore, GE’s future\\nharm argument fails.\\n GE also contends that estoppel under 35 U.S.C.\\n§ 315(e) creates injury in fact for standing purposes. We\\nhave previously rejected the estoppel argument as a basis\\nfor Article III standing. Where, as here, the appellant does\\nnot currently practice the patent claims and the injury is\\nspeculative, we have held that the estoppel provision does\\nnot amount to an injury in fact. See, e.g., AVX Corp., 923\\nF.3d at 1362–63; Phigenix, 845 F.3d at 1175–76; Consumer\\nWatchdog v. Wis. Alumni Research Found., 753 F.3d 1258,\\n1262 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We see no need to reach a different\\nconclusion on this record.\\n CONCLUSION\\n We have considered GE’s remaining arguments and\\nfind them unpersuasive. We hold that GE lacks Article III\\nstanding to appeal the Board’s Final Written Decision and\\ntherefore dismiss the appeal.\\n DISMISSED\\n COSTS\\n No costs.\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2497\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-\\n00531.\\n ______________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3490,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4638039,"string":"4,638,039"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Stephen QUAKE, Hei-Mun Christina Fan, Appellants v. Yuk-Ming Dennis LO, Rossa Wai Kwun Chiu, Kwan Chee Chan, Appellees"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Quake v. Lo"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-10"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"2018-1779, 2018-1780, 2018-1782"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Reyna, Chen, Hughes\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"CHEN, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n STEPHEN QUAKE, HEI-MUN CHRISTINA FAN,\\n Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\nYUK-MING DENNIS LO, ROSSA WAI KWUN CHIU,\\n KWAN CHEE CHAN,\\n Appellees\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1779, 2018-1780, 2018-1782\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 105,920,\\n105,923, 105,924.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 10, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n EDWARD R. REINES, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Red-\\nwood Shores, CA, argued for appellants. Also represented\\nby DEREK C. WALTER.\\n\\n CHARLES E. LIPSEY, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,\\nGarrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA, argued for appellees.\\nAlso represented by STEVEN O'CONNOR; JEFFREY DANIEL\\nSMYTH, Palo Alto, CA; MICHELE C. BOSCH, Washington,\\nDC.\\n ______________________\\n\\f2 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Before REYNA, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.\\nCHEN, Circuit Judge.\\n This appeal arises from a decision of the U.S. Patent\\nand Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board\\n(Board) finding the four claims of Dr. Stephen Quake and\\nDr. Christina Fan’s (collectively, Quake) U.S. Patent No.\\n8,008,018 and Claim 25 of their U.S. Patent Application\\nNo. 12/393,833 unpatentable for lack of written description\\nunder 35 U.S.C. § 112 as part of three interference proceed-\\nings.\\n The claims cover a method of determining the presence\\nof a chromosomal abnormality (called aneuploidy) in fe-\\ntuses by using massively parallel sequencing (MPS) tech-\\nnology to sequence deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fragments\\nfrom a sample of the mother’s blood that contains both ma-\\nternal and fetal DNA, identifying what chromosomes those\\nDNA fragments come from based on their sequences, and\\ndetermining if the test chromosome is over- or under-rep-\\nresented in the sample as compared to a reference chromo-\\nsome. The claims recite a random MPS method for the\\ndetection step, meaning that all of the DNA in the sample\\nis sequenced, as opposed to sequencing specific, targeted\\nsequences. Quake’s specification (shared by the ’018 pa-\\ntent and the ’833 application), however, only expressly de-\\nscribes detection of target sequences in its thirty-plus\\ncolumn specification.\\n The Board issued a first decision in 2015, finding the\\nrandom MPS claims at issue invalid for lack of written de-\\nscription. That decision was appealed to this court. This\\ncourt remanded to the Board to correct three errors and\\nredo its § 112 analysis. On remand, the Board found that\\na citation to a reference and a single sentence in Quake’s\\nspecification support random sequencing, but that the two,\\non their own, are insufficient to describe the claimed\\nmethod of determining fetal aneuploidy through random\\nMPS. The Board also found that the specification did not\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 3\\n\\n\\n\\ndescribe the final claimed comparison step in terms that\\nwould be applicable to random MPS, namely adjusting/nor-\\nmalizing for chromosome size before assessing the over- or\\nunder-representation of a chromosome. In this fact-specific\\ncase, substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings on\\nlack of adequate written description. The Board also did\\nnot reopen the record to admit expert testimony from an-\\nother proceeding, and we find that the Board did not abuse\\nits discretion in not doing so. Accordingly, we affirm.\\n BACKGROUND\\n The primary issue on appeal is whether the patent\\nspecification shared by the ’018 patent and the ’833 appli-\\ncation sufficiently describes using random MPS to deter-\\nmine fetal aneuploidy, such that it meets the requirements\\nof § 112.\\n A. Technology and Patents\\n Humans are normally born with twenty-three pairs of\\nchromosomes. Chromosomal aneuploidy describes the con-\\ndition where a fetus is born with either an abnormally high\\nor low number of chromosomes. For example, Down syn-\\ndrome is the presence of an extra chromosome 21. Histor-\\nically, testing for fetal aneuploidy required invasive and\\nrisky procedures. One such procedure, amniocentesis, in-\\nvolves sampling amniotic fluid from the womb with a nee-\\ndle. Alternative non-invasive methods existed, but their\\naccuracy was suboptimal.\\n The two competing inventors in the underlying inter-\\nferences on appeal—Stanford Professor Quake and Chi-\\nnese University of Hong Kong Professor Dennis Lo—both\\ndeveloped methods for diagnosing aneuploidies using cell-\\nfree fetal DNA (cff-DNA) from maternal blood samples. In\\n1997, Lo and a colleague discovered that cff-DNA circulates\\nin maternal blood in small amounts. This discovery made\\npossible new prenatal screening techniques for chromoso-\\nmal and other abnormalities, but researchers developing\\n\\f4 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ntechniques for assaying cff-DNA had to overcome interfer-\\nence from maternal DNA in the maternal blood sample.\\n Both Quake’s and Lo’s inventions, which are at the cen-\\nter of the interferences here, involve successful use of\\nmixed maternal and fetal DNA samples to determine fetal\\naneuploidy. Assuming the mother does not have aneu-\\nploidy, aneuploidy in the fetus would affect the mother’s\\nblood sample such that the ratio between the amount of\\nany given normal chromosome to the abnormal chromo-\\nsome would no longer be 1:1.\\n Additionally, both inventions incorporate MPS technol-\\nogy, which allows for sequencing of large amounts of DNA\\nsamples simultaneously. When a sequence is long enough,\\nit can be uniquely identified as originating from a certain\\nchromosome. Counting how many sequences come from\\nvarious chromosomes is useful for determining over- or un-\\nder-representation of a chromosome, thereby determining\\nthe presence of fetal aneuploidy. MPS can be performed by\\n“random” or “targeted” methods. In the random format, all\\nDNA in a sample is amplified, then sequenced. In the tar-\\ngeted format, only the target sequence(s) are amplified,\\nthen sequenced.\\n Quake is the named inventor of the ’018 patent. The\\npatent’s “Brief Summary of the Invention” states that the\\n“present invention is directed to a method of differential\\ndetection of target sequences in a mixture of maternal and\\nfetal genetic material.” ’018 patent, col. 4 ll. 43–45 (empha-\\nsis added). The ’018 patent specification outlines four steps\\nin the method: (1) obtaining a maternal tissue sample,\\npreferably blood; (2) distributing single DNA molecules\\nfrom this sample to a number of discrete reaction samples;\\n(3) “[d]etecting the presence of the target in the DNA in a\\nlarge number of reaction samples”; and (4) performing\\n“[q]uantitative analysis of the detection of the maternal\\nand fetal target sequences.” Id. at col. 8 l. 35–col. 9 l. 6\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 5\\n\\n\\n\\n(emphasis added); see also id. at col. 4 l. 39–col. 6 l. 60\\n(“Brief Summary of Invention”).\\n The ’018 patent specification consistently focuses on\\ndetection of targeted sequences, using the term “target”\\nmore than sixty times throughout the patent. See, e.g., id.\\nat col. 7 l. 62–col. 8 l. 17 (In Fig. 1A, “[s]hown in the wells\\nare targets representing chromosome 21 and 22,” “no target\\nDNA is found” in well 2A, “[a] single run will have numer-\\nous random variations, such as wells that have no target\\nsequence,” “samples with no target will clearly result in no\\npeak at all,” and “wells with two or more targets[] will give\\npeaks significantly higher.”) (emphases added); col. 8 l. 35–\\ncol. 9 l. 6 (“[T]he number of reaction samples is selected to\\ngive a statistically significant result for the number of cop-\\nies of a target in the DNA molecules;” “[d]etecting the pres-\\nence of the target in the DNA in a large number of reaction\\nsamples;” “[q]uantitative analysis of the detection of the\\nmaternal and fetal target sequences,” which in “some case\\ncases . . . may include targets to different regions, such as\\nprobes to a target on a chromosome suspected of being pre-\\nsent in an abnormal copy number (trisonomy) compared to\\na normal diploid chromosome, which is used as a control.”)\\n(emphases added); col. 11 ll. 40–43 (For digital PCR, “[a]\\nreaction sample in general will contain a single template\\nmolecule (haplotype), two target molecules (diploid) or\\nthree target molecules (trisomy).”) (emphases added); col.\\n14 ll. 27–28 (describing detection through digital PCR via\\n“probes[] which become fluorescent on binding to the target\\nsequence(s)”) (emphasis added); col. 12 ll. 28–30, col. 19 ll.\\n10–12, 51–52 (describing detection by sequencing, includ-\\ning MPS, as “carried out by directly sequencing a region of\\ninterest to determine if it is the target sequence of interest,”\\n“sequenc[ing] the target sequence in the reaction sample\\ndirectly,” “sequenc[ing] . . . by labeled probes to detect a\\ntarget specific sequence,” and “[l]onger sequences [being\\nable to] uniquely identify more particular targets”) (empha-\\nses added); col. 21 ll. 8–12 (explaining the quantitative\\n\\f6 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nanalysis step as follows: “[i]f chromosome A is euploid and\\nrepresents an internal control, and chromosome B is aneu-\\nploid and is the target to be measured, then one can amplify\\nrepresentative segments from both chromosomes via digi-\\ntal PCR” and “the number of target sequences needed for\\nstatistical[ly significant] sequences may be reduced by us-\\ning controls sequences”) (emphases added); col. 22 ll. 26\\n(providing “[e]xamples of diseases where the target se-\\nquence may exist” in one copy in the maternal DNA, but\\nwith two copies in the fetal DNA) (emphasis added); col. 25\\nll. 49–col. 28 ll. 43 (describing an exemplary detection\\nmethod with two target sequences: amyloid for test chro-\\nmosome 21 and GAPDH for control chromosome 12).\\n The specification states that the digital polymerase\\nchain reaction (PCR) technique is the preferred embodi-\\nment for amplifying and detecting target sequences. See\\nid. at col. 12 ll. 18–20. In digital PCR, a mixed maternal\\nand fetal DNA sample is distributed amongst thousands of\\nreaction wells. Known target DNA sequences—usually one\\nsequence from a reference chromosome and one sequence\\nfrom the chromosome being tested for aneuploidy—are am-\\nplified by target-specific primers located in those wells. If\\neither target sequence is present in any particular individ-\\nual reaction well, it will be amplified by PCR (positive re-\\nsult); if no target sequence is present in the reaction well,\\nno sequence will be amplified (negative result). Id. at col.\\n8 ll. 52–56. The reaction wells are then tested for the pres-\\nence of the target sequences. Id. at col. 7 l. 62–col. 8 l. 9.\\n The specification also identifies some alternative detec-\\ntion methods to digital PCR, one of which is MPS. Id. at\\ncol. 19 ll. 5–12. Only two paragraphs in the thirty-plus col-\\numns in the specification relate to MPS. Id. at col 19 l. 48–\\ncol. 20 l. 20. This appeal focuses on the content of those\\ntwo paragraphs; the relevant text is reproduced in the dis-\\ncussion below.\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 7\\n\\n\\n\\n Either technique, digital PCR or MPS, can be used to\\ncount the number of chromosomes containing the targeted\\nsequence versus the number of chromosomes containing\\nthe reference chromosome sequence in the sample. The\\n’018 patent specification describes using this molecular\\ncounting data to run statistical analysis. Id. at col. 21 ll.\\n1–45. The number of positive results from each target se-\\nquence leads to a ratio of the reference and test chromo-\\nsomes. Id. If the ratio of the two chromosomes is not 1:1\\nand the deviation is statistically significant, the fetus is de-\\ntermined to have aneuploidy. See, e.g., id. at col. 28 ll. 5–\\n25 (Table 1). The specification describes running a “Stu-\\ndent’s T-test” and z-test/chi-squared test to analyze the sta-\\ntistical significance of a deviation from the expected 1:1\\nratio. Id. at col. 5 l. 64–col. 6 l. 3, col. 28 ll. 5–34.\\n Quake claimed his method of determining fetal aneu-\\nploidy by detecting target sequences in an application filed\\non February 2, 2007, and filed a continuation as Applica-\\ntion No. 12/393,803 in February 2009. The original claims\\nof Quake’s ’803 application explicitly recited methods that\\nrequired the detection of “target sequences.” In 2011,\\nQuake split the ’803 application into multiple applications.\\nIn the application which later issued as the ’018 patent,\\nQuake canceled all pending claims and added new claims\\ncovering the use of random MPS to determine fetal aneu-\\nploidy. J.A. 4134–42. Representative issued claim 1 re-\\ncites:\\n 1. A method for determining presence or absence of\\n fetal aneuploidy in a maternal tissue sample com-\\n prising fetal and maternal genomic DNA, wherein\\n the method comprises:\\n a. obtaining a mixture of fetal and mater-\\n nal genomic DNA from said maternal tis-\\n sue sample:\\n b. conducting massively parallel DNA se-\\n quencing of DNA fragments randomly\\n\\f8 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n selected from the mixture of fetal and ma-\\n ternal genomic DNA of step a) to determine\\n the sequence of said DNA fragments;\\n c. identifying chromosomes to which the se-\\n quences obtained in step b) belong;\\n d. using the data of step c) to compare an\\n amount of at least one first chromosome in\\n said mixture of maternal and fetal genomic\\n DNA to an amount of at least one second\\n chromosome in said mixture of maternal\\n and fetal genomic DNA, wherein said at\\n least one first chromosome is presumed to\\n be euploid in the fetus, wherein said at\\n least one second chromosome is suspected\\n to be aneuploid in the fetus, thereby deter-\\n mining the presence or absence of said fetal\\n aneuploidy.\\n’018 patent, col. 33 ll. 48–67. Claim 25 of Application No.\\n12/393,833, another application that continued from the\\n’803 application, also recites using random MPS to deter-\\nmine fetal aneuploidy.\\n Also in 2007, Lo, along with Rossa Wai Kwun Chu and\\nKwan Chee Chan (collectively, Lo), filed a patent applica-\\ntion that undisputedly describes and claims a method of\\nusing “random” MPS to determine fetal aneuploidy. The\\napplication was published in 2009. Lo’s application is de-\\nvoted to, and describes in considerable detail, randomly se-\\nquencing the entire sample via MPS after fragmentation\\nand division. See J.A. 4159–60; see also, e.g., J.A. 4154–59\\n¶¶ 14, 21, 48, 55, 58, 67, 70–71 (repeatedly stating that “a\\nfraction of the [whole] genome” in the sample is sequenced).\\nThe sequencing data is mapped, based on known sequences\\nof the human genome, to determine which chromosome\\neach sequenced fragment is from. However, since some\\nchromosomes are longer and would contribute more frag-\\nments to the random sample, Lo’s application explains that\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 9\\n\\n\\n\\na skilled artisan would need to adjust for chromosome size,\\ni.e., normalize the data by the length of each chromosome,\\nbefore being able to accurately determine the presence of\\nfetal aneuploidy. See J.A. 4158 ¶¶ 69–70. Lo filed U.S.\\nProvisional Application No. 60/951,438 describing this\\nmethod on July 23, 2007, and subsequently filed U.S. Pa-\\ntent Application Nos. 13/070,275, 12/178,181, 13/070,240,\\n12/614,350, 13/070,251, and 13/417,119 on the same inven-\\ntion.\\n B. Procedural History\\n Both Quake and Lo requested interferences to deter-\\nmine who first invented the random MPS method and\\nwhen the method was invented. In early 2013, the Board\\ndeclared three interferences between Quake’s patent and\\napplication and Lo’s applications. 1 In each proceeding, Lo\\nattacked the claims of Quake’s ’018 patent or ’833 applica-\\ntion as unpatentable for lack of written description. Alt-\\nhough the ’018 patent specification is over thirty columns,\\nMPS is discussed in just two paragraphs at columns 19 to\\n20. In Quake’s view, these two paragraphs not only teach\\nMPS as a sequencing tool, but also describe a second detec-\\ntion methodology—i.e., random sequencing—distinct from\\ntargeted sequencing. The Board, however, disagreed with\\nQuake and granted Lo’s written description motions in all\\nthree interferences and, in 2015, found Quake’s claims un-\\npatentable for lack of written description.\\n Quake appealed the Board’s decisions to the U.S. Dis-\\ntrict Court for the Northern District of California under 35\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Interference No. 105,920 involved Lo Application\\nNo. 13/070,275 and the ’018 patent. Interference No.\\n105,923 involved Lo Application Nos. 12/178,181,\\n13/070,240, 12/614,350, and 13/070,251 and Quake’s ’833\\napplication. Interference No. 105,924 involved Lo Applica-\\ntion No. 13/417,119 and Quake’s ’833 application.\\n\\f10 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nU.S.C. § 146. Some expert discovery took place before the\\ncase was removed to this court once the law mandated that\\nthe district court lacked jurisdiction to review the Board’s\\ninterference decisions. See Biogen MA, Inc. v. Japanese\\nFound. for Cancer Research, 785 F.3d 648 (Fed. Cir. 2015)\\n(holding that this court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction\\nover Board decisions), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1450 (2016).\\n In 2017, this court vacated the Board’s 2015 decisions\\nand remanded with instructions for the Board: (1) to con-\\nsider whether the patent’s written description at columns\\n19 to 20 discloses random MPS, as opposed to the Board’s\\n2015 finding that the description in those columns “does\\nnot preclude targeted MPS”; (2) to explain the meaning of\\nvarious phrases in that portion of the patent specification,\\nincluding “using attachment of randomly fragmented ge-\\nnomic DNA,” “solid phase amplification,” “~1,000 copies of\\ntemplate,” “templates,” and “[t]hese templates are se-\\nquenced using four-color DNA sequencing-by-synthesis\\ntechnology”; and (3) to examine whether a skilled artisan\\nwould have known, as of the priority date, that the specifi-\\ncation’s reference to Illumina products meant random MPS\\nsequencing based on record evidence describing Illumina\\nproducts or any other random MPS products existing as of\\nthe filing date. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ.\\nv. Chinese Univ. of Hong Kong, 860 F.3d 1367, 1377–79\\n(Fed. Cir. 2017).\\n On remand, the Board held a conference call with the\\nparties and issued an order declining to reopen the record,\\nin relevant part denying Quake’s request for admission of\\ntestimony by Lo’s expert from the terminated district court\\nproceedings. J.A. 7576–620; Interference No. 105,920, Or-\\nder–New Briefing and Evidence 37 C.F.R. § 41.104(a) (De-\\ncember 12, 2017). The Board issued its remand decisions\\non December 20, 2017. J.A. 6, 31, 53. The Board’s analysis\\nwas substantively identical in each interference, so for pur-\\nposes of this appeal, we refer primarily to the Board’s\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 11\\n\\n\\n\\nfindings as to the ’018 patent and treat them as representa-\\ntive of the Board’s findings as to the ’833 application.\\n In its decisions, the Board first followed this court’s in-\\nstructions. It focused on whether the ’018 patent describes\\nrandom MPS, rather than on whether its written descrip-\\ntion does not preclude targeted MPS. The Board explained\\nthe various phrases in the two MPS-related paragraphs at\\ncolumns 19 to 20 in the specification as describing MPS\\ngenerally, without reference to targeted versus random\\nMPS. The Board also credited an admission from Lo that\\n“Illumina sequencing platforms [referenced in column 19 of\\nthe ’018 patent specification] can perform either random or\\ntargeted DNA sequencing, depending on whether predeter-\\nmined target DNA fragments are specifically identified or\\ntargeted prior to sequencing,” but found no record evidence\\nof the Illumina products’ capabilities as of the date of in-\\nvention. J.A. 11.\\n The Board then looked elsewhere in the two MPS par-\\nagraphs of the ’018 patent specification for evidence of writ-\\nten description of the ’018 claims:\\n [Passage A:] A methodology useful in the present\\n invention platform is based on massively parallel\\n sequencing of millions of fragments using attach-\\n ment of randomly fragmented genomic DNA to a\\n planar, optically transparent surface and solid\\n phase amplification to create a high density se-\\n quencing flow cell with millions of clusters, each\\n containing ~1,000 copies of template per sq. cm.\\n These templates are sequenced using four-color\\n DNA sequencing-by-synthesis technology. See,\\n products offered by Illumina, Inc., San Diego Calif.\\n Also, see US 2003/0022207 to Balasubramanian,\\n et al., published Jan. 30, 2003, entitled “Arrayed\\n polynucleotides and their use in genome analysis.”\\n [Passage B:] Sequencing may be combined with\\n amplification-based methods in a microfluidic chip\\n\\f12 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n having reaction chambers for both PCR and micro-\\n scopic template-based sequencing. Only about 30\\n bp of random sequence information are needed to\\n identify a sequence as belonging to a specific human\\n chromosome. Longer sequences can uniquely iden-\\n tify more particular targets. An algorithm for de-\\n signing unique sequences is described in Yamada\\n et al. illustrative of software methods that can be\\n used to identify a sequence in comparison to the\\n known genome sequence. See, also Zhu et al., de-\\n scribing a single-molecule-based technology for\\n studying mRNA.\\nJ.A. 9–10, 14 (quoting ’018 patent, col. 19 l. 59–col. 20 l. 20\\nand referring to the first paragraph as Passage A and the\\nsecond paragraph as Passage B) (emphases added).\\n The Board found that the citation to Balasubramanian\\nin Passage A “provides some[] disclosure of massively par-\\nallel sequencing of DNA fragments selected randomly”\\nbased on the testimony of Lo’s expert, Dr. Gabriel. J.A. 13\\n(citing J.A. 2828 (Gabriel Depo. at 60:18–22)). The Board\\nthen found that Passage B “expressly describe[s] random\\nsequencing” because it uses the phrase “random sequence\\ninformation” in the sentence “about 30 bp of random se-\\nquence information are needed to identify a sequence as\\nbelonging to a specific human chromosome.” ’018 patent,\\ncol. 20 ll. 7–9.\\n But the Board subsequently found that Balasubrama-\\nnian and the “30 bp of random sequence information are\\nneeded to identify a sequence” sentence are not sufficient\\nto meet the requirements of § 112. The Board character-\\nized passages A and B as providing “some express descrip-\\ntion of individual elements recited in Quake’s claims,” but\\nfound these disclosures “[in]sufficient to have demon-\\nstrated [to a skilled artisan] that the inventors were in pos-\\nsession of a method of determining fetal aneuploidy with\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 13\\n\\n\\n\\nrandom massively parallel sequencing as claimed by\\nQuake.” J.A. 15 (emphasis added).\\n Specifically, the Board found that although the “the ex-\\npress language describes some of the elements of the\\nclaimed method, . . . it is not sufficient to provide a written\\ndescription under 35 U.S.C. § 112” because the ’018 patent\\n(1) “does not tie these elements together into a complete\\nmethod” and (2) “does not explain how to use the data from\\nrandom massively parallel sequencing of a mixture of ge-\\nnomic DNA to determine fetal aneuploidy.” Id. First, the\\nBoard contrasted the scant information in the ’018 patent\\nregarding random MPS to the thirty columns of detailed,\\nstep-by-step description of targeted detection and targeted\\nMPS, tying the steps together into a complete method. J.A.\\n15–17. Second, the Board explained that nothing in the\\n’018 patent suggests to a skilled artisan to adjust for chro-\\nmosome size when doing the comparison claimed in step\\nD—a statistical normalization step necessary when using\\nrandom MPS data to determine the presence or absence of\\naneuploidy, as disclosed in Lo’s applications and explained\\nabove. J.A. 17–22. Quake argued that a skilled artisan\\nwould have known how to do so, but the Board found that\\n“Quake did not direct [it] to a portion of the ’018 patent that\\ndescribes the need to do so,” and therefore, a skilled artisan\\n“would not have considered that the inventors of the ’018\\npatent contemplated a method requiring” normalizing for\\nchromosome size. J.A. 21 (emphasis added).\\n As in its 2015 decision, the Board again granted Lo’s\\nwritten description motions and found Quake’s claims un-\\npatentable.\\n Quake appeals both the Board’s written description\\nfindings and its decision not to admit testimony from the\\n\\f14 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ndistrict court proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant\\nto 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). 2\\n DISCUSSION\\n I.\\n Compliance with the written description requirement\\nof § 112 is a question of fact, judged from the perspective of\\na skilled artisan as of the patent’s filing date. Ariad\\nPharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1355 (Fed.\\nCir. 2010) (en banc). Accordingly, in an appeal from the\\nBoard, this court examines whether the Board’s decision is\\nsupported by substantial evidence. Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d\\n1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “A finding is supported by sub-\\nstantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the ev-\\nidence to support the finding.” Redline Detection, LLC v.\\nStar Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 449 (Fed. Cir. 2015)\\n(citation omitted).\\n “The essence of the written description requirement is\\nthat a patent applicant, as part of the bargain with the pub-\\nlic, must describe his or her invention so that the public\\nwill know what it is and that he or she has truly made the\\nclaimed invention.” AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v.\\nJanssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014).\\nThe written description requirement is satisfied if the in-\\nventor “convey[s] with reasonable clarity to those skilled in\\nthe art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in\\npossession of the invention,’ and demonstrate[s] that by\\ndisclosure in the specification of the patent.” Centocor\\n\\n\\n 2 This court has exclusive jurisdiction over an appeal\\nfrom a decision of the Board in an interference declared af-\\nter September 15, 2012 pursuant to the version of 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1295(a)(4)(A) as it existed on September 15, 2012. Bio-\\ngen, 785 F.3d at 654; Technical Corrections—Leahy-Smith\\nAmerica Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-274, 126 Stat. 2456\\n§ 1(k)(3).\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 15\\n\\n\\n\\nOrtho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1348\\n(Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoff-\\nmann–La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).\\n “[T]he purpose of the written description requirement\\nis to prevent an applicant from later asserting that he in-\\nvented that which he did not,” and the requirement is par-\\nticularly important when, as here, claims are added later\\nduring prosecution in response to development by others.\\nAgilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383\\n(Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, the first time Quake tried to cover\\nrandom MPS with this specification was after the publica-\\ntion of Lo’s patent application directed to random MPS:\\nQuake then canceled all his pending claims and replaced\\nthem with claims covering random MPS, creating a mis-\\nmatch between the claims and the originally filed specifi-\\ncation.\\n An invention is usually expressly described in the spec-\\nification; there is no reasonable argument for that being\\nthe case here. Though the Board found some express dis-\\nclosure of two elements of the claimed invention in Pas-\\nsages A and B, the term “random MPS” is never mentioned\\nin the ’018 patent, the process of amplifying all the DNA in\\na sample before sequencing is never described, and Quake\\nadmits that there is no embodiment describing the statis-\\ntical analysis needed to determine fetal aneuploidy from\\ndata generated by random MPS. Oral Arg. at 9:39–53. The\\nmethod as a whole is not expressly described.\\n However, “ipsis verbis disclosure is not necessary to\\nsatisfy the written description requirement of section 112.”\\nFujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570 (Fed. Cir.\\n1996). “[T]he disclosure need only reasonably convey to\\npersons skilled in the art that the inventor had possession\\nof the subject matter in question.” Id. This court has anal-\\nogized such a disclosure as “mark[ing] trails by making\\nblaze marks on . . . trees” to “find[] one’s way through the\\nwoods” of a specification such that a skilled artisan would\\n\\f16 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nbe able to follow that trail and understand what the inven-\\ntors had invented. In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 994–95\\n(CCPA 1967). The Board made such an inquiry here.\\n We address the Board’s findings as to the Balasubra-\\nmanian citation in Passage A and the single sentence in\\nPassage B, and then its treatment of the chromosome size\\nadjustment necessary for claimed step D.\\n We find that there is substantial evidence for the\\nBoard’s finding that Balasubramanian supports random\\nMPS and clarify that the record indicates that Balasubra-\\nmanian also supports targeted MPS.\\n Balasubramanian is directed to a method of MPS that\\ninvolves immobilizing polynucleotides (e.g., DNA) to an ar-\\nray and sequencing the polynucleotides to detect differ-\\nences between sequences. U.S. Patent Publication No.\\n2003/0022207 A1 at Abstract. In particular, the publica-\\ntion focuses on finding single polynucleotide polymor-\\nphisms (SNPs). See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ [0006], [0034], [0069],\\n[0070]. SNPs tend to occur at unique locations, so identi-\\nfying them in DNA samples can indicate which chromo-\\nsome the polynucleotide belongs to. Significantly, the\\namplification step that differentiates targeted and random\\nMPS 3 is a preparatory step in the Illumina methods that\\ncomes before any of the steps disclosed in Balasubrama-\\nnian. J.A. 5763. Consequently, as Lo’s expert Dr. Gabriel\\nexplains, the teachings of Balasubramanian could be used\\nin either random or targeted MPS, depending on the na-\\nture of the preceding amplification step. Id.\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 As explained above and in our previous opinion, the\\nmain difference between random and targeted MPS is that\\nin targeted MPS, the target sequence(s) are specifically\\namplified before sequencing, whereas in random MPS, all\\nDNA in the sample is amplified. Stanford, 860 F.3d at\\n1370.\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 17\\n\\n\\n\\n So, while we agree with Quake and the Board that Dr.\\nGabriel admitted that Balasubramanian “supports ran-\\ndomly massively parallel sequencing,” J.A. 2828, record ev-\\nidence cited by the Board establishes that\\nBalasubramanian supports targeted sequencing as well.\\nDr. Gabriel stated that “Balasubramanian discloses both\\ntargeted and random sequencing approaches.” J.A. 5763\\n(emphasis added). The Board previously credited this tes-\\ntimony when discussing Illumina products based on the\\nBalasubramanian technology. 4 Stanford, 860 F.3d at\\n1372–73 (noting that the Board relied on “Dr. Ga-\\nbriel’s statement that the Illumina platform referenced in\\nthe specification could be used for both random and tar-\\ngeted sequencing”). The Board also cited to this fact in the\\ndecisions now on appeal. J.A. 11, 36, 58 (citing a “Material\\nFact” in Lo’s motions that “Illumina sequencing platforms\\ncan perform either random or targeted DNA sequencing,\\ndepending on whether predetermined target DNA frag-\\nments are specifically identified or targeted prior to se-\\nquencing” (emphasis added)). 5 Further, as Lo points out,\\nthe Balasubramanian reference is cited in the ’018 patent\\nspecification for “sequenc[ing] using four-color DNA se-\\nquencing-by-synthesis technology,” a statement applicable\\nto sequencing generally, rather than random versus tar-\\ngeted sequencing. ’018 patent, col. 19 l. 65–col. 20 l. 3; Oral\\nArg. at 22:04–22.\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 The ’833 application notes that “the assignee of the\\nBalasubramanian PG Publication, Solexa, was acquired by\\nIllumina,” and that Balasubramanian’s teachings form a\\npartial basis of Illumina’s commercial sequencing system\\ndescribed in the Quake’s specification. J.A. 4330 n.2.\\n 5 There is no evidence in the record that skilled arti-\\nsans disputed that MPS could be used in either random or\\ntargeted sequencing approaches at the time of filing of\\nQuake’s patent application.\\n\\f18 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n In sum, we agree with the Board that the citation to\\nBalasubramanian in Passage A “provides some . . . disclo-\\nsure of massively parallel sequencing of DNA fragments\\nselected randomly,” J.A. 13, but note, in line with the\\nBoard’s other findings, that skilled artisans would have un-\\nderstood the specification to support targeted MPS as well,\\nsee J.A. 11–12 (Board rejecting Quake’s argument that\\n“passage A does not describe targeted sequencing and\\ntherefore must describe random sequencing”). Our previ-\\nous decision did not reject a finding that Quake’s specifica-\\ntion supports targeted sequencing; rather we explained\\nthat Quake’s description “might be able to disclose both\\nrandom and targeted sequencing” and therefore directed\\nthe Board on remand to “examine whether a [skilled arti-\\nsan] would have understood that the ’018 patent’s specifi-\\ncation disclosed random MPS sequencing, as opposed to\\nwhether the specification did not preclude targeted MPS\\nsequencing.” Stanford, 860 F.3d at 1378, 1379. That a\\nskilled artisan would understand Balasubramanian to sup-\\nport targeted sequencing as well makes the Quake specifi-\\ncation’s citation to Balasubramanian consistent with the\\nrest of its discussion of detecting target sequences.\\n As for the disclosure of Passage B, the Board does not\\ncite to any record evidence that a skilled artisan would un-\\nderstand the sentence—“about 30 bp of random sequence\\ninformation are needed to identify a sequence as belonging\\nto a specific human chromosome”—as referring to random\\nMPS. First, the Board found elsewhere that simply using\\nthe word “random” is not enough to indicate random MPS.\\nSee J.A. 11 (finding that the phrase “randomly fragmented\\ngenomic DNA” from Passage A is “not necessarily the\\nsame” as the phrase referring to random MPS in the\\nclaims). Second, the 30 bp statement precedes the sen-\\ntence, “Longer sequences can uniquely identify more par-\\nticular targets,” indicating that the 30 bp language covers\\nidentifying the chromosomes of origin for DNA fragments\\ngenerated through targeted MPS. ’018 patent, col. 20 ll. 9–\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 19\\n\\n\\n\\n10 (emphasis added); J.A. 4755, ¶ 80 (Lo’s expert stating\\nthe 30 bp “statement refers to the minimum size of a\\nunique target sequence in the genome for use in amplifica-\\ntion, particularly given the statements in the following sen-\\ntence[]”). But the passage could also cover identifying the\\nchromosomes of origin for DNA fragments generated\\nthrough random MPS. We agree with the Board that the\\n30 bp sentence is more generally “about the number of base\\npairs needed to identify the chromosomal origin of a se-\\nquence.” J.A. 16. There is no indication in the record that\\nthe length of a sequence needed to identify the chromosome\\nof origin is any different for DNA fragments sequenced via\\nrandom and targeted MPS.\\n However, given the specification’s repeated discussion\\nof targeted sequencing, a bare citation to Balasubramanian\\nand use of the phrase “about 30 bp of random sequence in-\\nformation are needed to identify a sequence” in the context\\nof this patent would be a highly elliptical, cryptic way to\\ncommunicate possession of a second method of sequencing\\nto determine fetal aneuploidy. An alternative explanation\\nconsistent with the entire patent specification is that\\nQuake invented using targeted MPS for determining fetal\\naneuploidy and wrote the ’018 patent specification to de-\\nscribe targeted MPS, among other ways of performing tar-\\ngeted detection such as digital PCR. Balasubramanian\\nwas cited in Passage A to support a sentence describing de-\\ntection via sequencing with four-color DNA sequencing-by-\\nsynthesis technology. That method of detection would re-\\nsult in a ratio of two targeted sequences that would be an-\\nalyzed, as described in the specification, for statistically\\nsignificant deviations from a 1:1 ratio to determine fetal\\naneuploidy. ’018 patent, col. 21 ll. 1–45, col. 28 ll. 5–34.\\n In light of the limited disclosure value of the single Bal-\\nasubramanian citation and the “about 30 bp of random se-\\nquence information are needed to identify a sequence”\\nsentence, substantial evidence supports the Board’s find-\\ning that those two items together are not adequate to\\n\\f20 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nconvey using random MPS to determine fetal aneuploidy\\nas claimed. In terms of Ruschig’s analogy of the written\\ndescription requirement being akin to creating a trail\\nthrough the woods, the two are (at most) faint “blaze\\nmarks” for determining fetal aneuploidy by random MPS,\\nwhile the rest of the specification marks a clear trail to tar-\\ngeted MPS. Ruschig, 379 F.2d at 994–95.\\n As for claim step D, as the Board recognized, if the ’018\\npatent had contained some description of adjusting for\\nchromosome size when comparing the data resulting from\\nthe MPS step, then a skilled artisan may have had an in-\\ndirect, but clear indication that the inventor contemplated\\na method of using random MPS to determine fetal aneu-\\nploidy. But the ’018 patent only describes statistical anal-\\nyses, such as a “Student’s T-test” and z-test/chi-squared\\ntest, in the context of assessing divergence from a 1:1 ratio\\nbetween a targeted sequence and a sequence from a refer-\\nence chromosome. ’018 patent, col. 5 l. 64–col. 6 l. 3, col. 28\\nll. 5–34. There is no discussion of adjusting for chromo-\\nsome size before performing those statistical analyses. We\\nagree with the Board that “[i]n the absence of a description\\nof such analysis, [the] teachings in the specification about\\n[the Balasubramanian] equipment useful for random mas-\\nsively parallel sequencing and techniques for determining\\nsequences are not sufficient to demonstrate possession of\\nthe claimed method.” J.A. 21 (emphasis added).\\n On appeal, Quake incorrectly characterizes the Board’s\\ndecision as finding that all but the normalization for chro-\\nmosome size in claim step D are disclosed in the ’018 patent\\nand then focuses solely on why the Board’s step D finding\\nshould be reversed. Lo counters, and we agree, that the\\nBoard’s findings did not go so far. The Board found no ex-\\npress description or sufficient blazemarks of the claimed\\nmethod as a whole and also relied on the chromosome size\\nadjustment issue as a key missing disclosure that could\\nhave cured Quake’s written description problem. Under\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 21\\n\\n\\n\\nthis understanding of the Board’s decision, we reject each\\nof Quake’s six specific arguments.\\n First, Quake argues that conducting statistical analy-\\nsis on random MPS data was known and predictable, and\\nnot a “mere wish or plan” as in Centocor Ortho Biotech, 636\\nF.3d 1341, 1351 and Regents of the University of California\\nv. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The\\nBoard cites to these two decisions when concluding that\\n“the inventors had only ‘a mere wish or plan’ to use this\\nnew technology in their invention.” J.A. 22. We under-\\nstand this statement as characterizing the two-paragraph,\\nvery-brief suggestion of using MPS (as an alternative to\\ndigital PCR) in the ’018 patent as a “mere wish or plan” to\\nuse MPS in its method of detecting targeted sequences,\\nsuch that the details could be filled in by a skilled artisan.\\nBut that view as to the use of MPS technology for targeted\\nsequencing is consistent with the Board’s core finding that\\nthe patent fails to reasonably convey using MPS to detect\\nthe chromosomal origin of “DNA fragments randomly se-\\nlected from the mixture of fetal and maternal genomic\\nDNA” to determine the presence or absence of fetal aneu-\\nploidy, as claimed. ’018 patent, col. 33 ll. 48–67.\\n Second, Quake argues that the normalization (chromo-\\nsome size adjustment) details necessarily required for us-\\ning random MPS data to perform the comparison step\\nclaimed in step D are unclaimed limitations and thus did\\nnot need to be described to satisfy § 112. The language of\\nclaim step D requires using the data from random MPS (re-\\ncited in claim steps B and C) “to compare an amount of at\\nleast one first chromosome in said mixture of maternal and\\nfetal genomic DNA to an amount of at least one second chro-\\nmosome in said mixture of maternal and fetal genomic\\nDNA, wherein said at least one first chromosome is pre-\\nsumed to be euploid in the fetus, wherein said at least one\\nsecond chromosome is suspected to be aneuploid in the fe-\\ntus, thereby determining the presence or absence of said fe-\\ntal aneuploidy.” ’018 patent, col. 33 ll. 59–67 (emphases\\n\\f22 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nadded). Quake argues that the claim language only re-\\nquires a comparison of two chromosome amounts to deter-\\nmine aneuploidy and cites three passages from the\\nspecification as disclosing how to conduct such a compari-\\nson:\\n Quantitative analysis of the detection of the mater-\\n nal and fetal target sequences. In some cases this\\n may include targets to different regions, such as\\n probes to a target on a chromosome suspected of be-\\n ing present in an abnormal copy number (trison-\\n omy) compared to a normal diploid chromosome,\\n which is used as a control.\\nId. at col. 9 ll. 1–6 (emphases added).\\n A control sequence is used to distinguish an abnor-\\n mal increase in the target sequence, e.g., a trison-\\n omy. Thus there is a differential detection of target\\n sequences, one of which is chosen to represent a\\n normal genotype present in both mother and off-\\n spring, and one of which is chosen for detection of\\n an abnormal genotype in the offspring, where the\\n target sequence in the offspring will be different\\n from that of the mother, e.g. in trisomy.\\nId. at col. 7 ll. 54–61 (emphases added).\\n The presence or absence of different target se-\\n quences in the discrete samples is detected; and the\\n results are analyzed whereby the number of results\\n from the discrete samples will provide data suffi-\\n cient to obtain results distinguishing different tar-\\n get sequences. In one aspect, the method involves\\n an analysis of a trisomy. In this method, one of the\\n different target sequences (e.g. chromosome 21) is\\n diploid in maternal genetic material and aneuploid\\n in fetal genetic material and another of the differ-\\n ent target sequences (e.g. chromosome 12) is dip-\\n loid in both maternal and fetal genetic material.\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 23\\n\\n\\n\\nId. at col. 5 ll. 21–31 (emphases added). These passages\\nspecifically recite comparison of “target sequences,” which\\ncannot be random MPS. And we disagree with Quake’s un-\\nderstanding that the Board required disclosure of the nor-\\nmalization step to show written description of the claimed\\nmethod. Rather, the Board found that to establish posses-\\nsion of random MPS for determining fetal aneuploidy, such\\na disclosure would have helped communicate possession of\\nthe claimed subject matter, given that the specification\\nlacks an express disclosure of the random sequencing-\\nbased invention. J.A. 17. This is because the normaliza-\\ntion step is relevant for data generated from random se-\\nquencing and not targeted sequencing. J.A. 17–18.\\n Third, Quake argues that because the claim language\\ndoes not require normalizing for chromosome size, the al-\\nleged lack of disclosure is more of an enablement issue than\\na written description issue. But the Board cited the lack of\\ndisclosure not because normalization is required by the\\nclaim language of step D, but because disclosure of normal-\\nization would have conveyed to a skilled artisan reading\\nthe specification that the inventor contemplated a compar-\\nison step for a random sequencing method, in addition to\\nthe specification’s very clear disclosure of a comparison\\nstep for a targeted sequencing method. This missing de-\\nscription could have provided a supporting blazemark, but\\nwithout it, there is no description of “using the data of step\\nc)” obtained by random MPS to compare chromosomal\\namounts and “determin[e] the presence or absence of . . .\\nfetal aneuploidy.” ’018 patent, col. 33 ll. 59–67 (claim 1,\\nstep D).\\n Fourth, Quake argues that the need to normalize ran-\\ndom MPS results was known to a skilled artisan in 2007\\nand therefore not necessary to describe in the specification.\\nAppellants’ Op. Br. 38, 43–44 (characterizing it as an im-\\nplementation detail that did not need to be described); Ap-\\npellants’ Reply Br. 8, 10 (same); Oral Arg. at 7:01–03\\n(same). Quake argues that MPS (generally) was known in\\n\\f24 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nthe art, that a skilled artisan would recognize that the 1:1\\nratio analysis detailed in the specification would not work\\nfor random sequencing without modification due to differ-\\nences in chromosome sizes, and that a skilled artisan would\\nresort to their knowledge of normalization to fill in the de-\\ntails. Appellants’ Op. Br. 44. The Board agreed that a\\nskilled artisan would have known how to normalize the\\nrandom sequence data to account for chromosome size if\\nthe artisan understood that there was a need to do so—i.e.,\\nif the artisan understood that using random MPS to deter-\\nmine fetal aneuploidy was being described by the rest of\\nthe written description. J.A. 21. As explained above, the\\nBoard reasonably found that the Balasubramanian citation\\nand the “about 30 bp of random sequence information are\\nneeded to identify a sequence” sentence are not adequate\\nto do so.\\n Fifth, Quake argues that the statistical steps described\\nin the ’018 patent are sufficient to describe step D. The\\ndisclosure explains, in the context of a simplified digital\\nPCR example, that one expects to find an increased num-\\nber of amplified DNA fragments corresponding to an ab-\\nnormal chromosome compared to a normal chromosome.\\n’018 patent, col. 21 ll. 4–21. Quake argues that a skilled\\nartisan would have understood this passage to describe the\\nconcept of using molecular counting and basic statistical\\nanalysis to assess over- or under-representation of the test\\nchromosome in the DNA, indicating aneuploidy. However,\\nthere is no explicit discussion of normalizing the molecular\\ncounting data, i.e., adjusting the statistical analysis for\\nchromosome size. J.A. 20–21. And the issue of whether a\\nskilled artisan would have thought to do so turns on the\\nstrength of the blazemarks disclosing random MPS in Pas-\\nsages A and B, which we explain above are insufficient for\\na skilled artisan to recognize.\\n Finally, Quake argues that the Board erroneously\\nshifted the burden of proof from Lo to Quake by “not iden-\\ntifying any evidence submitted by Lo, or otherwise present\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 25\\n\\n\\n\\nin the record, that a person of ordinary skill in the art\\nwould have been unable to recognize promptly the need for\\nthis basic [chromosome size adjustment/normalization]\\nstep to be performed.” Appellants’ Op. Br. 46. The Board\\nnoted in its 2015 decisions that “[t]o prevail, Lo must pro-\\nvide sufficient evidence to persuade us that the Quake ’018\\npatent is so lacking of written description that one of skill\\nin the art at the time would not have recognized the inven-\\ntion Quake claims.” J.A. 1007, 1034, 1063. On remand,\\nthe Board determined that step D of Quake’s claims was\\nnot supported by the ’018 patent specification based on Lo’s\\narguments and expert testimony explaining that random\\nMPS requires normalization for chromosome size and ex-\\nplaining why the ’018 patent does not describe such analy-\\nsis. J.A. 17–22. We do not find that the Board erroneously\\nshifted the burden of proof here.\\n II.\\n Quake also argues that the Board erred by refusing to\\nadmit expert testimony from the terminated district court\\nproceedings into the record. According to Quake, Dr. Ga-\\nbriel (Lo’s expert) made key admissions on the issue of\\nwhether there was adequate description of claim step D. 6\\n This court already characterized the district proceed-\\ning as a “nullity” and declined to consider evidence from it\\nin the previous appeal. Stanford, 860 F.3d at 1374–75. We\\ndid however leave it “up to the Board to decide whether it\\nwishes to reopen the record” on remand if it believed that\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Lo argues that we should reject this argument be-\\ncause Quake did not present it to the Board. Appellee’s Br.\\n54. But Quake raised the issue both in a conference call\\nwith the Board after this court’s remand and in its rehear-\\ning request. Interference No. 105,920, Order–New Briefing\\nand Evidence 37 C.F.R. § 41.104(a) (December 12, 2017);\\nJ.A. 7741–42. We do not find waiver of this issue.\\n\\f26 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n“new evidence may have been developed in the district pro-\\nceedings,” and specifically “express[ed] no opinion on\\nwhether it should do so.” Id. at 1375.\\n On remand, the Board considered and then decided not\\nto reopen the record. We review that Board decision re-\\ngarding management of its permissive rules governing\\ntrial proceedings for abuse of discretion. Redline Detection,\\nLLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 442 (Fed. Cir.\\n2015). Quake argues that this case is like Ultratec, where\\nwe found such abuse when (1) the proffered testimony was\\ninconsistent with the same witness’s testimony already in\\nthe record (both for substantive and credibility purposes);\\n(2) there was no reviewable transcript of a conference call\\nduring which the Board discussed the issue with the par-\\nties; and (3) the Board provided no written, reviewable rea-\\nsoning for why it did not allow the evidence into the record.\\nUltratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC, 872 F.3d 1267, 1272–\\n1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017). None of these issues are present\\nhere.\\n First, the testimony that Quake argues should have\\nbeen considered is not inconsistent to the extent it would\\nbear on the substance of Dr. Gabriel’s reasoning or her\\ncredibility. One excerpt reads:\\n Q. So the written description issue you have with\\n Step D of Claim 1 relates to the fact that the data\\n comes from Step C, not anything else in Step D,\\n right?\\n A. Step B and C.\\n Q. Step B and C, okay. But nothing else in Step D.\\n It’s not the comparison in Step D that’s the prob-\\n lem, right? Because that’s described throughout\\n the patent specification.\\n A. Yes.\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 27\\n\\n\\n\\nJ.A. 12835. This testimony is consistent with what Dr. Ga-\\nbriel and Lo have been arguing all along and what the\\nBoard found: the written description issue with step D re-\\nsults from the recitation of random MPS data in preceding\\nsteps B and C. “[N]othing else . . . in Step D [is] the prob-\\nlem” in that step D is adequately described for analyzing\\ndata resulting from methods such as digital PCR or tar-\\ngeted MPS and would be adequately described for analyz-\\ning data from random MPS, if obtaining data via random\\nMPS (Steps B and C) was expressly described in the speci-\\nfication.\\n Quake also points to Dr. Gabriel’s testimony that the\\ninventive part of the ’018 patent is using a mixed maternal\\nand fetal DNA sample to determine aneuploidy, while ad-\\nmitting that the “digital analysis techniques discussed in\\nthe ’018 patent” were known. J.A. 12838–39. Quake ar-\\ngues that this would explain “why a skilled artisan would\\nunderstand the invention is possessed by Quake even if un-\\nclaimed details of embodiments of the invention were not\\nexpressly spelled out for known sequencing methods.” Ap-\\npellants’ Op. Br. 53. As an initial matter, as Lo points out,\\nthis excerpted testimony refers expressly to using “digital\\nanalysis techniques” and “digital analytic methods” to con-\\nduct aneuploidy detection, which is digital PCR, not ran-\\ndom MPS. Appellees’ Br. 58–59. Further, this testimony\\nis not inconsistent; it is inapposite. An admission that\\nMPS was generally known does not address whether the\\n’018 specification describes using random MPS to deter-\\nmine fetal aneuploidy. Finally, whether the step D meth-\\nods were inventive or not is irrelevant to the issue here;\\nthey are still part of the claim and need to be adequately\\ndescribed to satisfy § 112.\\n Second, there is a transcript of the conference call be-\\ntween the Board and parties here, J.A. 7576–620, and the\\nBoard provided written reasoning for its decision. The\\nBoard issued an Order explaining in detail why it would\\nnot reopen the record, pointing out that (1) “[n]either party\\n\\f28 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nargued . . . that it lacked an opportunity to present evidence\\nduring the interference”; (2) Quake did not provide a “suf-\\nficient reason to give either party a second chance to pre-\\nsent evidence on the same issues that were originally\\nbefore the Board”; (3) “Quake did not provide a persuasive\\nreason why the arguments and evidence it made in opposi-\\ntion to Lo’s original motions were not complete during the\\ninterference”; and (4) “Quake did not explain how allowing\\nadditional evidence at this point in the proceeding will lead\\nto a more ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive’ resolution of the\\nproceeding.” J.A. 7574. Quake did not seek rehearing of\\nthe Board’s decision in the Order. J.A. 7741.\\n Third, the Board again wrote out its reasoning for why\\nit did not admit the testimony in denying Quake’s requests\\nfor rehearing of the final written decisions now on appeal.\\nJ.A.7740–42. In those requests, Quake asked the Board to\\nreopen the record to add a specific part of Dr. Gabriel’s dis-\\ntrict court testimony regarding Lo’s statistical analysis dis-\\nclosure and argued that it would be a denial of due process\\nnot to do so. The Board denied that request because it\\nfound the testimony irrelevant to Quake’s written descrip-\\ntion. J.A. 7741–42. The Board also found that “[b]ecause\\nQuake has failed to show why it did not have a full and fair\\nopportunity to present evidence and argument with its\\noriginal briefs, including from the cross-examination of Dr.\\nGabriel conducted during the interference, it is not clear\\nwhat due process was denied.” Id.\\n In sum, we find that the Board was within its discre-\\ntion to not reopen the record for the admission of the testi-\\nmony at issue.\\n CONCLUSION\\n Because the shared specification of Quake’s ’018 patent\\nand ’833 application does not disclose a method of using\\nrandom MPS to determine fetal aneuploidy, substantial ev-\\nidence supports the Board’s grant of Lo’s motions finding\\nthe four claims of the ’018 patent and claim 25 of the ’833\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 29\\n\\n\\n\\napplication unpatentable for lack of written description un-\\nder § 112. We also find that the Board did not abuse its\\ndiscretion in not admitting Dr. Gabriel’s testimony from\\nthe district court proceedings. Accordingly, the Board’s\\nthree interference decisions are\\n AFFIRMED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4415292/\", \"author_raw\": \"CHEN, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"REYNA"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"CHEN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"HUGHES"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4638039/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Stephen QUAKE, Hei-Mun Christina Fan, Appellants v. Yuk-Ming Dennis LO, Rossa Wai Kwun Chiu, Kwan Chee Chan, Appellees\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-10\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n STEPHEN QUAKE, HEI-MUN CHRISTINA FAN,\n Appellants\n\n v.\n\nYUK-MING DENNIS LO, ROSSA WAI KWUN CHIU,\n KWAN CHEE CHAN,\n Appellees\n ______________________\n\n 2018-1779, 2018-1780, 2018-1782\n ______________________\n\n Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 105,920,\n105,923, 105,924.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: July 10, 2019\n ______________________\n\n EDWARD R. REINES, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Red-\nwood Shores, CA, argued for appellants. Also represented\nby DEREK C. WALTER.\n\n CHARLES E. LIPSEY, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,\nGarrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA, argued for appellees.\nAlso represented by STEVEN O'CONNOR; JEFFREY DANIEL\nSMYTH, Palo Alto, CA; MICHELE C. BOSCH, Washington,\nDC.\n ______________________\n\f2 QUAKE v. LO\n\n\n\n\n Before REYNA, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.\nCHEN, Circuit Judge.\n This appeal arises from a decision of the U.S. Patent\nand Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board\n(Board) finding the four claims of Dr. Stephen Quake and\nDr. Christina Fan’s (collectively, Quake) U.S. Patent No.\n8,008,018 and Claim 25 of their U.S. Patent Application\nNo. 12/393,833 unpatentable for lack of written description\nunder 35 U.S.C. § 112 as part of three interference proceed-\nings.\n The claims cover a method of determining the presence\nof a chromosomal abnormality (called aneuploidy) in fe-\ntuses by using massively parallel sequencing (MPS) tech-\nnology to sequence deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fragments\nfrom a sample of the mother’s blood that contains both ma-\nternal and fetal DNA, identifying what chromosomes those\nDNA fragments come from based on their sequences, and\ndetermining if the test chromosome is over- or under-rep-\nresented in the sample as compared to a reference chromo-\nsome. The claims recite a random MPS method for the\ndetection step, meaning that all of the DNA in the sample\nis sequenced, as opposed to sequencing specific, targeted\nsequences. Quake’s specification (shared by the ’018 pa-\ntent and the ’833 application), however, only expressly de-\nscribes detection of target sequences in its thirty-plus\ncolumn specification.\n The Board issued a first decision in 2015, finding the\nrandom MPS claims at issue invalid for lack of written de-\nscription. That decision was appealed to this court. This\ncourt remanded to the Board to correct three errors and\nredo its § 112 analysis. On remand, the Board found that\na citation to a reference and a single sentence in Quake’s\nspecification support random sequencing, but that the two,\non their own, are insufficient to describe the claimed\nmethod of determining fetal aneuploidy through random\nMPS. The Board also found that the specification did not\n\fQUAKE v. LO 3\n\n\n\ndescribe the final claimed comparison step in terms that\nwould be applicable to random MPS, namely adjusting/nor-\nmalizing for chromosome size before assessing the over- or\nunder-representation of a chromosome. In this fact-specific\ncase, substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings on\nlack of adequate written description. The Board also did\nnot reopen the record to admit expert testimony from an-\nother proceeding, and we find that the Board did not abuse\nits discretion in not doing so. Accordingly, we affirm.\n BACKGROUND\n The primary issue on appeal is whether the patent\nspecification shared by the ’018 patent and the ’833 appli-\ncation sufficiently describes using random MPS to deter-\nmine fetal aneuploidy, such that it meets the requirements\nof § 112.\n A. Technology and Patents\n Humans are normally born with twenty-three pairs of\nchromosomes. Chromosomal aneuploidy describes the con-\ndition where a fetus is born with either an abnormally high\nor low number of chromosomes. For example, Down syn-\ndrome is the presence of an extra chromosome 21. Histor-\nically, testing for fetal aneuploidy required invasive and\nrisky procedures. One such procedure, amniocentesis, in-\nvolves sampling amniotic fluid from the womb with a nee-\ndle. Alternative non-invasive methods existed, but their\naccuracy was suboptimal.\n The two competing inventors in the underlying inter-\nferences on appeal—Stanford Professor Quake and Chi-\nnese University of Hong Kong Professor Dennis Lo—both\ndeveloped methods for diagnosing aneuploidies using cell-\nfree fetal DNA (cff-DNA) from maternal blood samples. In\n1997, Lo and a colleague discovered that cff-DNA circulates\nin maternal blood in small amounts. This discovery made\npossible new prenatal screening techniques for chromoso-\nmal and other abnormalities, but researchers developing\n\f4 QUAKE v. LO\n\n\n\n\ntechniques for assaying cff-DNA had to overcome interfer-\nence from maternal DNA in the maternal blood sample.\n Both Quake’s and Lo’s inventions, which are at the cen-\nter of the interferences here, involve successful use of\nmixed maternal and fetal DNA samples to determine fetal\naneuploidy. Assuming the mother does not have aneu-\nploidy, aneuploidy in the fetus would affect the mother’s\nblood sample such that the ratio between the amount of\nany given normal chromosome to the abnormal chromo-\nsome would no longer be 1:1.\n Additionally, both inventions incorporate MPS technol-\nogy, which allows for sequencing of large amounts of DNA\nsamples simultaneously. When a sequence is long enough,\nit can be uniquely identified as originating from a certain\nchromosome. Counting how many sequences come from\nvarious chromosomes is useful for determining over- or un-\nder-representation of a chromosome, thereby determining\nthe presence of fetal aneuploidy. MPS can be performed by\n“random” or “targeted” methods. In the random format, all\nDNA in a sample is amplified, then sequenced. In the tar-\ngeted format, only the target sequence(s) are amplified,\nthen sequenced.\n Quake is the named inventor of the ’018 patent. The\npatent’s “Brief Summary of the Invention” states that the\n“present invention is directed to a method of differential\ndetection of target sequences in a mixture of maternal and\nfetal genetic material.” ’018 patent, col. 4 ll. 43–45 (empha-\nsis added). The ’018 patent specification outlines four steps\nin the method: (1) obtaining a maternal tissue sample,\npreferably blood; (2) distributing single DNA molecules\nfrom this sample to a number of discrete reaction samples;\n(3) “[d]etecting the presence of the target in the DNA in a\nlarge number of reaction samples”; and (4) performing\n“[q]uantitative analysis of the detection of the maternal\nand fetal target sequences.” Id. at col. 8 l. 35–col. 9 l. 6\n\fQUAKE v. LO 5\n\n\n\n(emphasis added); see also id. at col. 4 l. 39–col. 6 l. 60\n(“Brief Summary of Invention”).\n The ’018 patent specification consistently focuses on\ndetection of targeted sequences, using the term “target”\nmore than sixty times throughout the patent. See, e.g., id.\nat col. 7 l. 62–col. 8 l. 17 (In Fig. 1A, “[s]hown in the wells\nare targets representing chromosome 21 and 22,” “no target\nDNA is found” in well 2A, “[a] single run will have numer-\nous random variations, such as wells that have no target\nsequence,” “samples with no target will clearly result in no\npeak at all,” and “wells with two or more targets[] will give\npeaks significantly higher.”) (emphases added); col. 8 l. 35–\ncol. 9 l. 6 (“[T]he number of reaction samples is selected to\ngive a statistically significant result for the number of cop-\nies of a target in the DNA molecules;” “[d]etecting the pres-\nence of the target in the DNA in a large number of reaction\nsamples;” “[q]uantitative analysis of the detection of the\nmaternal and fetal target sequences,” which in “some case\ncases . . . may include targets to different regions, such as\nprobes to a target on a chromosome suspected of being pre-\nsent in an abnormal copy number (trisonomy) compared to\na normal diploid chromosome, which is used as a control.”)\n(emphases added); col. 11 ll. 40–43 (For digital PCR, “[a]\nreaction sample in general will contain a single template\nmolecule (haplotype), two target molecules (diploid) or\nthree target molecules (trisomy).”) (emphases added); col.\n14 ll. 27–28 (describing detection through digital PCR via\n“probes[] which become fluorescent on binding to the target\nsequence(s)”) (emphasis added); col. 12 ll. 28–30, col. 19 ll.\n10–12, 51–52 (describing detection by sequencing, includ-\ning MPS, as “carried out by directly sequencing a region of\ninterest to determine if it is the target sequence of interest,”\n“sequenc[ing] the target sequence in the reaction sample\ndirectly,” “sequenc[ing] . . . by labeled probes to detect a\ntarget specific sequence,” and “[l]onger sequences [being\nable to] uniquely identify more particular targets”) (empha-\nses added); col. 21 ll. 8–12 (explaining the quantitative\n\f6 QUAKE v. LO\n\n\n\n\nanalysis step as follows: “[i]f chromosome A is euploid and\nrepresents an internal control, and chromosome B is aneu-\nploid and is the target to be measured, then one can amplify\nrepresentative segments from both chromosomes via digi-\ntal PCR” and “the number of target sequences needed for\nstatistical[ly significant] sequences may be reduced by us-\ning controls sequences”) (emphases added); col. 22 ll. 26\n(providing “[e]xamples of diseases where the target se-\nquence may exist” in one copy in the maternal DNA, but\nwith two copies in the fetal DNA) (emphasis added); col. 25\nll. 49–col. 28 ll. 43 (describing an exemplary detection\nmethod with two target sequences: amyloid for test chro-\nmosome 21 and GAPDH for control chromosome 12).\n The specification states that the digital polymerase\nchain reaction (PCR) technique is the preferred embodi-\nment for amplifying and detecting target sequences. See\nid. at col. 12 ll. 18–20. In digital PCR, a mixed maternal\nand fetal DNA sample is distributed amongst thousands of\nreaction wells. Known target DNA sequences—usually one\nsequence from a reference chromosome and one sequence\nfrom the chromosome being tested for aneuploidy—are am-\nplified by target-specific primers located in those wells. If\neither target sequence is present in any particular individ-\nual reaction well, it will be amplified by PCR (positive re-\nsult); if no target sequence is present in the reaction well,\nno sequence will be amplified (negative result). Id. at col.\n8 ll. 52–56. The reaction wells are then tested for the pres-\nence of the target sequences. Id. at col. 7 l. 62–col. 8 l. 9.\n The specification also identifies some alternative detec-\ntion methods to digital PCR, one of which is MPS. Id. at\ncol. 19 ll. 5–12. Only two paragraphs in the thirty-plus col-\numns in the specification relate to MPS. Id. at col 19 l. 48–\ncol. 20 l. 20. This appeal focuses on the content of those\ntwo paragraphs; the relevant text is reproduced in the dis-\ncussion below.\n\fQUAKE v. LO 7\n\n\n\n Either technique, digital PCR or MPS, can be used to\ncount the number of chromosomes containing the targeted\nsequence versus the number of chromosomes containing\nthe reference chromosome sequence in the sample. The\n’018 patent specification describes using this molecular\ncounting data to run statistical analysis. Id. at col. 21 ll.\n1–45. The number of positive results from each target se-\nquence leads to a ratio of the reference and test chromo-\nsomes. Id. If the ratio of the two chromosomes is not 1:1\nand the deviation is statistically significant, the fetus is de-\ntermined to have aneuploidy. See, e.g., id. at col. 28 ll. 5–\n25 (Table 1). The specification describes running a “Stu-\ndent’s T-test” and z-test/chi-squared test to analyze the sta-\ntistical significance of a deviation from the expected 1:1\nratio. Id. at col. 5 l. 64–col. 6 l. 3, col. 28 ll. 5–34.\n Quake claimed his method of determining fetal aneu-\nploidy by detecting target sequences in an application filed\non February 2, 2007, and filed a continuation as Applica-\ntion No. 12/393,803 in February 2009. The original claims\nof Quake’s ’803 application explicitly recited methods that\nrequired the detection of “target sequences.” In 2011,\nQuake split the ’803 application into multiple applications.\nIn the application which later issued as the ’018 patent,\nQuake canceled all pending claims and added new claims\ncovering the use of random MPS to determine fetal aneu-\nploidy. J.A. 4134–42. Representative issued claim 1 re-\ncites:\n 1. A method for determining presence or absence of\n fetal aneuploidy in a maternal tissue sample com-\n prising fetal and maternal genomic DNA, wherein\n the method comprises:\n a. obtaining a mixture of fetal and mater-\n nal genomic DNA from said maternal tis-\n sue sample:\n b. conducting massively parallel DNA se-\n quencing of DNA fragments randomly\n\f8 QUAKE v. LO\n\n\n\n\n selected from the mixture of fetal and ma-\n ternal genomic DNA of step a) to determine\n the sequence of said DNA fragments;\n c. identifying chromosomes to which the se-\n quences obtained in step b) belong;\n d. using the data of step c) to compare an\n amount of at least one first chromosome in\n said mixture of maternal and fetal genomic\n DNA to an amount of at least one second\n chromosome in said mixture of maternal\n and fetal genomic DNA, wherein said at\n least one first chromosome is presumed to\n be euploid in the fetus, wherein said at\n least one second chromosome is suspected\n to be aneuploid in the fetus, thereby deter-\n mining the presence or absence of said fetal\n aneuploidy.\n’018 patent, col. 33 ll. 48–67. Claim 25 of Application No.\n12/393,833, another application that continued from the\n’803 application, also recites using random MPS to deter-\nmine fetal aneuploidy.\n Also in 2007, Lo, along with Rossa Wai Kwun Chu and\nKwan Chee Chan (collectively, Lo), filed a patent applica-\ntion that undisputedly describes and claims a method of\nusing “random” MPS to determine fetal aneuploidy. The\napplication was published in 2009. Lo’s application is de-\nvoted to, and describes in considerable detail, randomly se-\nquencing the entire sample via MPS after fragmentation\nand division. See J.A. 4159–60; see also, e.g., J.A. 4154–59\n¶¶ 14, 21, 48, 55, 58, 67, 70–71 (repeatedly stating that “a\nfraction of the [whole] genome” in the sample is sequenced).\nThe sequencing data is mapped, based on known sequences\nof the human genome, to determine which chromosome\neach sequenced fragment is from. However, since some\nchromosomes are longer and would contribute more frag-\nments to the random sample, Lo’s application explains that\n\fQUAKE v. LO 9\n\n\n\na skilled artisan would need to adjust for chromosome size,\ni.e., normalize the data by the length of each chromosome,\nbefore being able to accurately determine the presence of\nfetal aneuploidy. See J.A. 4158 ¶¶ 69–70. Lo filed U.S.\nProvisional Application No. 60/951,438 describing this\nmethod on July 23, 2007, and subsequently filed U.S. Pa-\ntent Application Nos. 13/070,275, 12/178,181, 13/070,240,\n12/614,350, 13/070,251, and 13/417,119 on the same inven-\ntion.\n B. Procedural History\n Both Quake and Lo requested interferences to deter-\nmine who first invented the random MPS method and\nwhen the method was invented. In early 2013, the Board\ndeclared three interferences between Quake’s patent and\napplication and Lo’s applications. 1 In each proceeding, Lo\nattacked the claims of Quake’s ’018 patent or ’833 applica-\ntion as unpatentable for lack of written description. Alt-\nhough the ’018 patent specification is over thirty columns,\nMPS is discussed in just two paragraphs at columns 19 to\n20. In Quake’s view, these two paragraphs not only teach\nMPS as a sequencing tool, but also describe a second detec-\ntion methodology—i.e., random sequencing—distinct from\ntargeted sequencing. The Board, however, disagreed with\nQuake and granted Lo’s written description motions in all\nthree interferences and, in 2015, found Quake’s claims un-\npatentable for lack of written description.\n Quake appealed the Board’s decisions to the U.S. Dis-\ntrict Court for the Northern District of California under 35\n\n\n\n 1 Interference No. 105,920 involved Lo Application\nNo. 13/070,275 and the ’018 patent. Interference No.\n105,923 involved Lo Application Nos. 12/178,181,\n13/070,240, 12/614,350, and 13/070,251 and Quake’s ’833\napplication. Interference No. 105,924 involved Lo Applica-\ntion No. 13/417,119 and Quake’s ’833 application.\n\f10 QUAKE v. LO\n\n\n\n\nU.S.C. § 146. Some expert discovery took place before the\ncase was removed to this court once the law mandated that\nthe district court lacked jurisdiction to review the Board’s\ninterference decisions. See Biogen MA, Inc. v. Japanese\nFound. for Cancer Research, 785 F.3d 648 (Fed. Cir. 2015)\n(holding that this court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction\nover Board decisions), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1450 (2016).\n In 2017, this court vacated the Board’s 2015 decisions\nand remanded with instructions for the Board: (1) to con-\nsider whether the patent’s written description at columns\n19 to 20 discloses random MPS, as opposed to the Board’s\n2015 finding that the description in those columns “does\nnot preclude targeted MPS”; (2) to explain the meaning of\nvarious phrases in that portion of the patent specification,\nincluding “using attachment of randomly fragmented ge-\nnomic DNA,” “solid phase amplification,” “~1,000 copies of\ntemplate,” “templates,” and “[t]hese templates are se-\nquenced using four-color DNA sequencing-by-synthesis\ntechnology”; and (3) to examine whether a skilled artisan\nwould have known, as of the priority date, that the specifi-\ncation’s reference to Illumina products meant random MPS\nsequencing based on record evidence describing Illumina\nproducts or any other random MPS products existing as of\nthe filing date. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ.\nv. Chinese Univ. of Hong Kong, 860 F.3d 1367, 1377–79\n(Fed. Cir. 2017).\n On remand, the Board held a conference call with the\nparties and issued an order declining to reopen the record,\nin relevant part denying Quake’s request for admission of\ntestimony by Lo’s expert from the terminated district court\nproceedings. J.A. 7576–620; Interference No. 105,920, Or-\nder–New Briefing and Evidence 37 C.F.R. § 41.104(a) (De-\ncember 12, 2017). The Board issued its remand decisions\non December 20, 2017. J.A. 6, 31, 53. The Board’s analysis\nwas substantively identical in each interference, so for pur-\nposes of this appeal, we refer primarily to the Board’s\n\fQUAKE v. LO 11\n\n\n\nfindings as to the ’018 patent and treat them as representa-\ntive of the Board’s findings as to the ’833 application.\n In its decisions, the Board first followed this court’s in-\nstructions. It focused on whether the ’018 patent describes\nrandom MPS, rather than on whether its written descrip-\ntion does not preclude targeted MPS. The Board explained\nthe various phrases in the two MPS-related paragraphs at\ncolumns 19 to 20 in the specification as describing MPS\ngenerally, without reference to targeted versus random\nMPS. The Board also credited an admission from Lo that\n“Illumina sequencing platforms [referenced in column 19 of\nthe ’018 patent specification] can perform either random or\ntargeted DNA sequencing, depending on whether predeter-\nmined target DNA fragments are specifically identified or\ntargeted prior to sequencing,” but found no record evidence\nof the Illumina products’ capabilities as of the date of in-\nvention. J.A. 11.\n The Board then looked elsewhere in the two MPS par-\nagraphs of the ’018 patent specification for evidence of writ-\nten description of the ’018 claims:\n [Passage A:] A methodology useful in the present\n invention platform is based on massively parallel\n sequencing of millions of fragments using attach-\n ment of randomly fragmented genomic DNA to a\n planar, optically transparent surface and solid\n phase amplification to create a high density se-\n quencing flow cell with millions of clusters, each\n containing ~1,000 copies of template per sq. cm.\n These templates are sequenced using four-color\n DNA sequencing-by-synthesis technology. See,\n products offered by Illumina, Inc., San Diego Calif.\n Also, see US 2003/0022207 to Balasubramanian,\n et al., published Jan. 30, 2003, entitled “Arrayed\n polynucleotides and their use in genome analysis.”\n [Passage B:] Sequencing may be combined with\n amplification-based methods in a microfluidic chip\n\f12 QUAKE v. LO\n\n\n\n\n having reaction chambers for both PCR and micro-\n scopic template-based sequencing. Only about 30\n bp of random sequence information are needed to\n identify a sequence as belonging to a specific human\n chromosome. Longer sequences can uniquely iden-\n tify more particular targets. An algorithm for de-\n signing unique sequences is described in Yamada\n et al. illustrative of software methods that can be\n used to identify a sequence in comparison to the\n known genome sequence. See, also Zhu et al., de-\n scribing a single-molecule-based technology for\n studying mRNA.\nJ.A. 9–10, 14 (quoting ’018 patent, col. 19 l. 59–col. 20 l. 20\nand referring to the first paragraph as Passage A and the\nsecond paragraph as Passage B) (emphases added).\n The Board found that the citation to Balasubramanian\nin Passage A “provides some[] disclosure of massively par-\nallel sequencing of DNA fragments selected randomly”\nbased on the testimony of Lo’s expert, Dr. Gabriel. J.A. 13\n(citing J.A. 2828 (Gabriel Depo. at 60:18–22)). The Board\nthen found that Passage B “expressly describe[s] random\nsequencing” because it uses the phrase “random sequence\ninformation” in the sentence “about 30 bp of random se-\nquence information are needed to identify a sequence as\nbelonging to a specific human chromosome.” ’018 patent,\ncol. 20 ll. 7–9.\n But the Board subsequently found that Balasubrama-\nnian and the “30 bp of random sequence information are\nneeded to identify a sequence” sentence are not sufficient\nto meet the requirements of § 112. The Board character-\nized passages A and B as providing “some express descrip-\ntion of individual elements recited in Quake’s claims,” but\nfound these disclosures “[in]sufficient to have demon-\nstrated [to a skilled artisan] that the inventors were in pos-\nsession of a method of determining fetal aneuploidy with\n\fQUAKE v. LO 13\n\n\n\nrandom massively parallel sequencing as claimed by\nQuake.” J.A. 15 (emphasis added).\n Specifically, the Board found that although the “the ex-\npress language describes some of the elements of the\nclaimed method, . . . it is not sufficient to provide a written\ndescription under 35 U.S.C. § 112” because the ’018 patent\n(1) “does not tie these elements together into a complete\nmethod” and (2) “does not explain how to use the data from\nrandom massively parallel sequencing of a mixture of ge-\nnomic DNA to determine fetal aneuploidy.” Id. First, the\nBoard contrasted the scant information in the ’018 patent\nregarding random MPS to the thirty columns of detailed,\nstep-by-step description of targeted detection and targeted\nMPS, tying the steps together into a complete method. J.A.\n15–17. Second, the Board explained that nothing in the\n’018 patent suggests to a skilled artisan to adjust for chro-\nmosome size when doing the comparison claimed in step\nD—a statistical normalization step necessary when using\nrandom MPS data to determine the presence or absence of\naneuploidy, as disclosed in Lo’s applications and explained\nabove. J.A. 17–22. Quake argued that a skilled artisan\nwould have known how to do so, but the Board found that\n“Quake did not direct [it] to a portion of the ’018 patent that\ndescribes the need to do so,” and therefore, a skilled artisan\n“would not have considered that the inventors of the ’018\npatent contemplated a method requiring” normalizing for\nchromosome size. J.A. 21 (emphasis added).\n As in its 2015 decision, the Board again granted Lo’s\nwritten description motions and found Quake’s claims un-\npatentable.\n Quake appeals both the Board’s written description\nfindings and its decision not to admit testimony from the\n\f14 QUAKE v. LO\n\n\n\n\ndistrict court proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant\nto 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). 2\n DISCUSSION\n I.\n Compliance with the written description requirement\nof § 112 is a question of fact, judged from the perspective of\na skilled artisan as of the patent’s filing date. Ariad\nPharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1355 (Fed.\nCir. 2010) (en banc). Accordingly, in an appeal from the\nBoard, this court examines whether the Board’s decision is\nsupported by substantial evidence. Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d\n1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “A finding is supported by sub-\nstantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the ev-\nidence to support the finding.” Redline Detection, LLC v.\nStar Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 449 (Fed. Cir. 2015)\n(citation omitted).\n “The essence of the written description requirement is\nthat a patent applicant, as part of the bargain with the pub-\nlic, must describe his or her invention so that the public\nwill know what it is and that he or she has truly made the\nclaimed invention.” AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v.\nJanssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014).\nThe written description requirement is satisfied if the in-\nventor “convey[s] with reasonable clarity to those skilled in\nthe art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in\npossession of the invention,’ and demonstrate[s] that by\ndisclosure in the specification of the patent.” Centocor\n\n\n 2 This court has exclusive jurisdiction over an appeal\nfrom a decision of the Board in an interference declared af-\nter September 15, 2012 pursuant to the version of 28 U.S.C.\n§ 1295(a)(4)(A) as it existed on September 15, 2012. Bio-\ngen, 785 F.3d at 654; Technical Corrections—Leahy-Smith\nAmerica Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-274, 126 Stat. 2456\n§ 1(k)(3).\n\fQUAKE v. LO 15\n\n\n\nOrtho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1348\n(Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoff-\nmann–La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).\n “[T]he purpose of the written description requirement\nis to prevent an applicant from later asserting that he in-\nvented that which he did not,” and the requirement is par-\nticularly important when, as here, claims are added later\nduring prosecution in response to development by others.\nAgilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383\n(Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, the first time Quake tried to cover\nrandom MPS with this specification was after the publica-\ntion of Lo’s patent application directed to random MPS:\nQuake then canceled all his pending claims and replaced\nthem with claims covering random MPS, creating a mis-\nmatch between the claims and the originally filed specifi-\ncation.\n An invention is usually expressly described in the spec-\nification; there is no reasonable argument for that being\nthe case here. Though the Board found some express dis-\nclosure of two elements of the claimed invention in Pas-\nsages A and B, the term “random MPS” is never mentioned\nin the ’018 patent, the process of amplifying all the DNA in\na sample before sequencing is never described, and Quake\nadmits that there is no embodiment describing the statis-\ntical analysis needed to determine fetal aneuploidy from\ndata generated by random MPS. Oral Arg. at 9:39–53. The\nmethod as a whole is not expressly described.\n However, “ipsis verbis disclosure is not necessary to\nsatisfy the written description requirement of section 112.”\nFujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570 (Fed. Cir.\n1996). “[T]he disclosure need only reasonably convey to\npersons skilled in the art that the inventor had possession\nof the subject matter in question.” Id. This court has anal-\nogized such a disclosure as “mark[ing] trails by making\nblaze marks on . . . trees” to “find[] one’s way through the\nwoods” of a specification such that a skilled artisan would\n\f16 QUAKE v. LO\n\n\n\n\nbe able to follow that trail and understand what the inven-\ntors had invented. In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 994–95\n(CCPA 1967). The Board made such an inquiry here.\n We address the Board’s findings as to the Balasubra-\nmanian citation in Passage A and the single sentence in\nPassage B, and then its treatment of the chromosome size\nadjustment necessary for claimed step D.\n We find that there is substantial evidence for the\nBoard’s finding that Balasubramanian supports random\nMPS and clarify that the record indicates that Balasubra-\nmanian also supports targeted MPS.\n Balasubramanian is directed to a method of MPS that\ninvolves immobilizing polynucleotides (e.g., DNA) to an ar-\nray and sequencing the polynucleotides to detect differ-\nences between sequences. U.S. Patent Publication No.\n2003/0022207 A1 at Abstract. In particular, the publica-\ntion focuses on finding single polynucleotide polymor-\nphisms (SNPs). See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ [0006], [0034], [0069],\n[0070]. SNPs tend to occur at unique locations, so identi-\nfying them in DNA samples can indicate which chromo-\nsome the polynucleotide belongs to. Significantly, the\namplification step that differentiates targeted and random\nMPS 3 is a preparatory step in the Illumina methods that\ncomes before any of the steps disclosed in Balasubrama-\nnian. J.A. 5763. Consequently, as Lo’s expert Dr. Gabriel\nexplains, the teachings of Balasubramanian could be used\nin either random or targeted MPS, depending on the na-\nture of the preceding amplification step. Id.\n\n\n\n 3 As explained above and in our previous opinion, the\nmain difference between random and targeted MPS is that\nin targeted MPS, the target sequence(s) are specifically\namplified before sequencing, whereas in random MPS, all\nDNA in the sample is amplified. Stanford, 860 F.3d at\n1370.\n\fQUAKE v. LO 17\n\n\n\n So, while we agree with Quake and the Board that Dr.\nGabriel admitted that Balasubramanian “supports ran-\ndomly massively parallel sequencing,” J.A. 2828, record ev-\nidence cited by the Board establishes that\nBalasubramanian supports targeted sequencing as well.\nDr. Gabriel stated that “Balasubramanian discloses both\ntargeted and random sequencing approaches.” J.A. 5763\n(emphasis added). The Board previously credited this tes-\ntimony when discussing Illumina products based on the\nBalasubramanian technology. 4 Stanford, 860 F.3d at\n1372–73 (noting that the Board relied on “Dr. Ga-\nbriel’s statement that the Illumina platform referenced in\nthe specification could be used for both random and tar-\ngeted sequencing”). The Board also cited to this fact in the\ndecisions now on appeal. J.A. 11, 36, 58 (citing a “Material\nFact” in Lo’s motions that “Illumina sequencing platforms\ncan perform either random or targeted DNA sequencing,\ndepending on whether predetermined target DNA frag-\nments are specifically identified or targeted prior to se-\nquencing” (emphasis added)). 5 Further, as Lo points out,\nthe Balasubramanian reference is cited in the ’018 patent\nspecification for “sequenc[ing] using four-color DNA se-\nquencing-by-synthesis technology,” a statement applicable\nto sequencing generally, rather than random versus tar-\ngeted sequencing. ’018 patent, col. 19 l. 65–col. 20 l. 3; Oral\nArg. at 22:04–22.\n\n\n\n 4 The ’833 application notes that “the assignee of the\nBalasubramanian PG Publication, Solexa, was acquired by\nIllumina,” and that Balasubramanian’s teachings form a\npartial basis of Illumina’s commercial sequencing system\ndescribed in the Quake’s specification. J.A. 4330 n.2.\n 5 There is no evidence in the record that skilled arti-\nsans disputed that MPS could be used in either random or\ntargeted sequencing approaches at the time of filing of\nQuake’s patent application.\n\f18 QUAKE v. LO\n\n\n\n\n In sum, we agree with the Board that the citation to\nBalasubramanian in Passage A “provides some . . . disclo-\nsure of massively parallel sequencing of DNA fragments\nselected randomly,” J.A. 13, but note, in line with the\nBoard’s other findings, that skilled artisans would have un-\nderstood the specification to support targeted MPS as well,\nsee J.A. 11–12 (Board rejecting Quake’s argument that\n“passage A does not describe targeted sequencing and\ntherefore must describe random sequencing”). Our previ-\nous decision did not reject a finding that Quake’s specifica-\ntion supports targeted sequencing; rather we explained\nthat Quake’s description “might be able to disclose both\nrandom and targeted sequencing” and therefore directed\nthe Board on remand to “examine whether a [skilled arti-\nsan] would have understood that the ’018 patent’s specifi-\ncation disclosed random MPS sequencing, as opposed to\nwhether the specification did not preclude targeted MPS\nsequencing.” Stanford, 860 F.3d at 1378, 1379. That a\nskilled artisan would understand Balasubramanian to sup-\nport targeted sequencing as well makes the Quake specifi-\ncation’s citation to Balasubramanian consistent with the\nrest of its discussion of detecting target sequences.\n As for the disclosure of Passage B, the Board does not\ncite to any record evidence that a skilled artisan would un-\nderstand the sentence—“about 30 bp of random sequence\ninformation are needed to identify a sequence as belonging\nto a specific human chromosome”—as referring to random\nMPS. First, the Board found elsewhere that simply using\nthe word “random” is not enough to indicate random MPS.\nSee J.A. 11 (finding that the phrase “randomly fragmented\ngenomic DNA” from Passage A is “not necessarily the\nsame” as the phrase referring to random MPS in the\nclaims). Second, the 30 bp statement precedes the sen-\ntence, “Longer sequences can uniquely identify more par-\nticular targets,” indicating that the 30 bp language covers\nidentifying the chromosomes of origin for DNA fragments\ngenerated through targeted MPS. ’018 patent, col. 20 ll. 9–\n\fQUAKE v. LO 19\n\n\n\n10 (emphasis added); J.A. 4755, ¶ 80 (Lo’s expert stating\nthe 30 bp “statement refers to the minimum size of a\nunique target sequence in the genome for use in amplifica-\ntion, particularly given the statements in the following sen-\ntence[]”). But the passage could also cover identifying the\nchromosomes of origin for DNA fragments generated\nthrough random MPS. We agree with the Board that the\n30 bp sentence is more generally “about the number of base\npairs needed to identify the chromosomal origin of a se-\nquence.” J.A. 16. There is no indication in the record that\nthe length of a sequence needed to identify the chromosome\nof origin is any different for DNA fragments sequenced via\nrandom and targeted MPS.\n However, given the specification’s repeated discussion\nof targeted sequencing, a bare citation to Balasubramanian\nand use of the phrase “about 30 bp of random sequence in-\nformation are needed to identify a sequence” in the context\nof this patent would be a highly elliptical, cryptic way to\ncommunicate possession of a second method of sequencing\nto determine fetal aneuploidy. An alternative explanation\nconsistent with the entire patent specification is that\nQuake invented using targeted MPS for determining fetal\naneuploidy and wrote the ’018 patent specification to de-\nscribe targeted MPS, among other ways of performing tar-\ngeted detection such as digital PCR. Balasubramanian\nwas cited in Passage A to support a sentence describing de-\ntection via sequencing with four-color DNA sequencing-by-\nsynthesis technology. That method of detection would re-\nsult in a ratio of two targeted sequences that would be an-\nalyzed, as described in the specification, for statistically\nsignificant deviations from a 1:1 ratio to determine fetal\naneuploidy. ’018 patent, col. 21 ll. 1–45, col. 28 ll. 5–34.\n In light of the limited disclosure value of the single Bal-\nasubramanian citation and the “about 30 bp of random se-\nquence information are needed to identify a sequence”\nsentence, substantial evidence supports the Board’s find-\ning that those two items together are not adequate to\n\f20 QUAKE v. LO\n\n\n\n\nconvey using random MPS to determine fetal aneuploidy\nas claimed. In terms of Ruschig’s analogy of the written\ndescription requirement being akin to creating a trail\nthrough the woods, the two are (at most) faint “blaze\nmarks” for determining fetal aneuploidy by random MPS,\nwhile the rest of the specification marks a clear trail to tar-\ngeted MPS. Ruschig, 379 F.2d at 994–95.\n As for claim step D, as the Board recognized, if the ’018\npatent had contained some description of adjusting for\nchromosome size when comparing the data resulting from\nthe MPS step, then a skilled artisan may have had an in-\ndirect, but clear indication that the inventor contemplated\na method of using random MPS to determine fetal aneu-\nploidy. But the ’018 patent only describes statistical anal-\nyses, such as a “Student’s T-test” and z-test/chi-squared\ntest, in the context of assessing divergence from a 1:1 ratio\nbetween a targeted sequence and a sequence from a refer-\nence chromosome. ’018 patent, col. 5 l. 64–col. 6 l. 3, col. 28\nll. 5–34. There is no discussion of adjusting for chromo-\nsome size before performing those statistical analyses. We\nagree with the Board that “[i]n the absence of a description\nof such analysis, [the] teachings in the specification about\n[the Balasubramanian] equipment useful for random mas-\nsively parallel sequencing and techniques for determining\nsequences are not sufficient to demonstrate possession of\nthe claimed method.” J.A. 21 (emphasis added).\n On appeal, Quake incorrectly characterizes the Board’s\ndecision as finding that all but the normalization for chro-\nmosome size in claim step D are disclosed in the ’018 patent\nand then focuses solely on why the Board’s step D finding\nshould be reversed. Lo counters, and we agree, that the\nBoard’s findings did not go so far. The Board found no ex-\npress description or sufficient blazemarks of the claimed\nmethod as a whole and also relied on the chromosome size\nadjustment issue as a key missing disclosure that could\nhave cured Quake’s written description problem. Under\n\fQUAKE v. LO 21\n\n\n\nthis understanding of the Board’s decision, we reject each\nof Quake’s six specific arguments.\n First, Quake argues that conducting statistical analy-\nsis on random MPS data was known and predictable, and\nnot a “mere wish or plan” as in Centocor Ortho Biotech, 636\nF.3d 1341, 1351 and Regents of the University of California\nv. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The\nBoard cites to these two decisions when concluding that\n“the inventors had only ‘a mere wish or plan’ to use this\nnew technology in their invention.” J.A. 22. We under-\nstand this statement as characterizing the two-paragraph,\nvery-brief suggestion of using MPS (as an alternative to\ndigital PCR) in the ’018 patent as a “mere wish or plan” to\nuse MPS in its method of detecting targeted sequences,\nsuch that the details could be filled in by a skilled artisan.\nBut that view as to the use of MPS technology for targeted\nsequencing is consistent with the Board’s core finding that\nthe patent fails to reasonably convey using MPS to detect\nthe chromosomal origin of “DNA fragments randomly se-\nlected from the mixture of fetal and maternal genomic\nDNA” to determine the presence or absence of fetal aneu-\nploidy, as claimed. ’018 patent, col. 33 ll. 48–67.\n Second, Quake argues that the normalization (chromo-\nsome size adjustment) details necessarily required for us-\ning random MPS data to perform the comparison step\nclaimed in step D are unclaimed limitations and thus did\nnot need to be described to satisfy § 112. The language of\nclaim step D requires using the data from random MPS (re-\ncited in claim steps B and C) “to compare an amount of at\nleast one first chromosome in said mixture of maternal and\nfetal genomic DNA to an amount of at least one second chro-\nmosome in said mixture of maternal and fetal genomic\nDNA, wherein said at least one first chromosome is pre-\nsumed to be euploid in the fetus, wherein said at least one\nsecond chromosome is suspected to be aneuploid in the fe-\ntus, thereby determining the presence or absence of said fe-\ntal aneuploidy.” ’018 patent, col. 33 ll. 59–67 (emphases\n\f22 QUAKE v. LO\n\n\n\n\nadded). Quake argues that the claim language only re-\nquires a comparison of two chromosome amounts to deter-\nmine aneuploidy and cites three passages from the\nspecification as disclosing how to conduct such a compari-\nson:\n Quantitative analysis of the detection of the mater-\n nal and fetal target sequences. In some cases this\n may include targets to different regions, such as\n probes to a target on a chromosome suspected of be-\n ing present in an abnormal copy number (trison-\n omy) compared to a normal diploid chromosome,\n which is used as a control.\nId. at col. 9 ll. 1–6 (emphases added).\n A control sequence is used to distinguish an abnor-\n mal increase in the target sequence, e.g., a trison-\n omy. Thus there is a differential detection of target\n sequences, one of which is chosen to represent a\n normal genotype present in both mother and off-\n spring, and one of which is chosen for detection of\n an abnormal genotype in the offspring, where the\n target sequence in the offspring will be different\n from that of the mother, e.g. in trisomy.\nId. at col. 7 ll. 54–61 (emphases added).\n The presence or absence of different target se-\n quences in the discrete samples is detected; and the\n results are analyzed whereby the number of results\n from the discrete samples will provide data suffi-\n cient to obtain results distinguishing different tar-\n get sequences. In one aspect, the method involves\n an analysis of a trisomy. In this method, one of the\n different target sequences (e.g. chromosome 21) is\n diploid in maternal genetic material and aneuploid\n in fetal genetic material and another of the differ-\n ent target sequences (e.g. chromosome 12) is dip-\n loid in both maternal and fetal genetic material.\n\fQUAKE v. LO 23\n\n\n\nId. at col. 5 ll. 21–31 (emphases added). These passages\nspecifically recite comparison of “target sequences,” which\ncannot be random MPS. And we disagree with Quake’s un-\nderstanding that the Board required disclosure of the nor-\nmalization step to show written description of the claimed\nmethod. Rather, the Board found that to establish posses-\nsion of random MPS for determining fetal aneuploidy, such\na disclosure would have helped communicate possession of\nthe claimed subject matter, given that the specification\nlacks an express disclosure of the random sequencing-\nbased invention. J.A. 17. This is because the normaliza-\ntion step is relevant for data generated from random se-\nquencing and not targeted sequencing. J.A. 17–18.\n Third, Quake argues that because the claim language\ndoes not require normalizing for chromosome size, the al-\nleged lack of disclosure is more of an enablement issue than\na written description issue. But the Board cited the lack of\ndisclosure not because normalization is required by the\nclaim language of step D, but because disclosure of normal-\nization would have conveyed to a skilled artisan reading\nthe specification that the inventor contemplated a compar-\nison step for a random sequencing method, in addition to\nthe specification’s very clear disclosure of a comparison\nstep for a targeted sequencing method. This missing de-\nscription could have provided a supporting blazemark, but\nwithout it, there is no description of “using the data of step\nc)” obtained by random MPS to compare chromosomal\namounts and “determin[e] the presence or absence of . . .\nfetal aneuploidy.” ’018 patent, col. 33 ll. 59–67 (claim 1,\nstep D).\n Fourth, Quake argues that the need to normalize ran-\ndom MPS results was known to a skilled artisan in 2007\nand therefore not necessary to describe in the specification.\nAppellants’ Op. Br. 38, 43–44 (characterizing it as an im-\nplementation detail that did not need to be described); Ap-\npellants’ Reply Br. 8, 10 (same); Oral Arg. at 7:01–03\n(same). Quake argues that MPS (generally) was known in\n\f24 QUAKE v. LO\n\n\n\n\nthe art, that a skilled artisan would recognize that the 1:1\nratio analysis detailed in the specification would not work\nfor random sequencing without modification due to differ-\nences in chromosome sizes, and that a skilled artisan would\nresort to their knowledge of normalization to fill in the de-\ntails. Appellants’ Op. Br. 44. The Board agreed that a\nskilled artisan would have known how to normalize the\nrandom sequence data to account for chromosome size if\nthe artisan understood that there was a need to do so—i.e.,\nif the artisan understood that using random MPS to deter-\nmine fetal aneuploidy was being described by the rest of\nthe written description. J.A. 21. As explained above, the\nBoard reasonably found that the Balasubramanian citation\nand the “about 30 bp of random sequence information are\nneeded to identify a sequence” sentence are not adequate\nto do so.\n Fifth, Quake argues that the statistical steps described\nin the ’018 patent are sufficient to describe step D. The\ndisclosure explains, in the context of a simplified digital\nPCR example, that one expects to find an increased num-\nber of amplified DNA fragments corresponding to an ab-\nnormal chromosome compared to a normal chromosome.\n’018 patent, col. 21 ll. 4–21. Quake argues that a skilled\nartisan would have understood this passage to describe the\nconcept of using molecular counting and basic statistical\nanalysis to assess over- or under-representation of the test\nchromosome in the DNA, indicating aneuploidy. However,\nthere is no explicit discussion of normalizing the molecular\ncounting data, i.e., adjusting the statistical analysis for\nchromosome size. J.A. 20–21. And the issue of whether a\nskilled artisan would have thought to do so turns on the\nstrength of the blazemarks disclosing random MPS in Pas-\nsages A and B, which we explain above are insufficient for\na skilled artisan to recognize.\n Finally, Quake argues that the Board erroneously\nshifted the burden of proof from Lo to Quake by “not iden-\ntifying any evidence submitted by Lo, or otherwise present\n\fQUAKE v. LO 25\n\n\n\nin the record, that a person of ordinary skill in the art\nwould have been unable to recognize promptly the need for\nthis basic [chromosome size adjustment/normalization]\nstep to be performed.” Appellants’ Op. Br. 46. The Board\nnoted in its 2015 decisions that “[t]o prevail, Lo must pro-\nvide sufficient evidence to persuade us that the Quake ’018\npatent is so lacking of written description that one of skill\nin the art at the time would not have recognized the inven-\ntion Quake claims.” J.A. 1007, 1034, 1063. On remand,\nthe Board determined that step D of Quake’s claims was\nnot supported by the ’018 patent specification based on Lo’s\narguments and expert testimony explaining that random\nMPS requires normalization for chromosome size and ex-\nplaining why the ’018 patent does not describe such analy-\nsis. J.A. 17–22. We do not find that the Board erroneously\nshifted the burden of proof here.\n II.\n Quake also argues that the Board erred by refusing to\nadmit expert testimony from the terminated district court\nproceedings into the record. According to Quake, Dr. Ga-\nbriel (Lo’s expert) made key admissions on the issue of\nwhether there was adequate description of claim step D. 6\n This court already characterized the district proceed-\ning as a “nullity” and declined to consider evidence from it\nin the previous appeal. Stanford, 860 F.3d at 1374–75. We\ndid however leave it “up to the Board to decide whether it\nwishes to reopen the record” on remand if it believed that\n\n\n\n 6 Lo argues that we should reject this argument be-\ncause Quake did not present it to the Board. Appellee’s Br.\n54. But Quake raised the issue both in a conference call\nwith the Board after this court’s remand and in its rehear-\ning request. Interference No. 105,920, Order–New Briefing\nand Evidence 37 C.F.R. § 41.104(a) (December 12, 2017);\nJ.A. 7741–42. We do not find waiver of this issue.\n\f26 QUAKE v. LO\n\n\n\n\n“new evidence may have been developed in the district pro-\nceedings,” and specifically “express[ed] no opinion on\nwhether it should do so.” Id. at 1375.\n On remand, the Board considered and then decided not\nto reopen the record. We review that Board decision re-\ngarding management of its permissive rules governing\ntrial proceedings for abuse of discretion. Redline Detection,\nLLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 442 (Fed. Cir.\n2015). Quake argues that this case is like Ultratec, where\nwe found such abuse when (1) the proffered testimony was\ninconsistent with the same witness’s testimony already in\nthe record (both for substantive and credibility purposes);\n(2) there was no reviewable transcript of a conference call\nduring which the Board discussed the issue with the par-\nties; and (3) the Board provided no written, reviewable rea-\nsoning for why it did not allow the evidence into the record.\nUltratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC, 872 F.3d 1267, 1272–\n1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017). None of these issues are present\nhere.\n First, the testimony that Quake argues should have\nbeen considered is not inconsistent to the extent it would\nbear on the substance of Dr. Gabriel’s reasoning or her\ncredibility. One excerpt reads:\n Q. So the written description issue you have with\n Step D of Claim 1 relates to the fact that the data\n comes from Step C, not anything else in Step D,\n right?\n A. Step B and C.\n Q. Step B and C, okay. But nothing else in Step D.\n It’s not the comparison in Step D that’s the prob-\n lem, right? Because that’s described throughout\n the patent specification.\n A. Yes.\n\fQUAKE v. LO 27\n\n\n\nJ.A. 12835. This testimony is consistent with what Dr. Ga-\nbriel and Lo have been arguing all along and what the\nBoard found: the written description issue with step D re-\nsults from the recitation of random MPS data in preceding\nsteps B and C. “[N]othing else . . . in Step D [is] the prob-\nlem” in that step D is adequately described for analyzing\ndata resulting from methods such as digital PCR or tar-\ngeted MPS and would be adequately described for analyz-\ning data from random MPS, if obtaining data via random\nMPS (Steps B and C) was expressly described in the speci-\nfication.\n Quake also points to Dr. Gabriel’s testimony that the\ninventive part of the ’018 patent is using a mixed maternal\nand fetal DNA sample to determine aneuploidy, while ad-\nmitting that the “digital analysis techniques discussed in\nthe ’018 patent” were known. J.A. 12838–39. Quake ar-\ngues that this would explain “why a skilled artisan would\nunderstand the invention is possessed by Quake even if un-\nclaimed details of embodiments of the invention were not\nexpressly spelled out for known sequencing methods.” Ap-\npellants’ Op. Br. 53. As an initial matter, as Lo points out,\nthis excerpted testimony refers expressly to using “digital\nanalysis techniques” and “digital analytic methods” to con-\nduct aneuploidy detection, which is digital PCR, not ran-\ndom MPS. Appellees’ Br. 58–59. Further, this testimony\nis not inconsistent; it is inapposite. An admission that\nMPS was generally known does not address whether the\n’018 specification describes using random MPS to deter-\nmine fetal aneuploidy. Finally, whether the step D meth-\nods were inventive or not is irrelevant to the issue here;\nthey are still part of the claim and need to be adequately\ndescribed to satisfy § 112.\n Second, there is a transcript of the conference call be-\ntween the Board and parties here, J.A. 7576–620, and the\nBoard provided written reasoning for its decision. The\nBoard issued an Order explaining in detail why it would\nnot reopen the record, pointing out that (1) “[n]either party\n\f28 QUAKE v. LO\n\n\n\n\nargued . . . that it lacked an opportunity to present evidence\nduring the interference”; (2) Quake did not provide a “suf-\nficient reason to give either party a second chance to pre-\nsent evidence on the same issues that were originally\nbefore the Board”; (3) “Quake did not provide a persuasive\nreason why the arguments and evidence it made in opposi-\ntion to Lo’s original motions were not complete during the\ninterference”; and (4) “Quake did not explain how allowing\nadditional evidence at this point in the proceeding will lead\nto a more ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive’ resolution of the\nproceeding.” J.A. 7574. Quake did not seek rehearing of\nthe Board’s decision in the Order. J.A. 7741.\n Third, the Board again wrote out its reasoning for why\nit did not admit the testimony in denying Quake’s requests\nfor rehearing of the final written decisions now on appeal.\nJ.A.7740–42. In those requests, Quake asked the Board to\nreopen the record to add a specific part of Dr. Gabriel’s dis-\ntrict court testimony regarding Lo’s statistical analysis dis-\nclosure and argued that it would be a denial of due process\nnot to do so. The Board denied that request because it\nfound the testimony irrelevant to Quake’s written descrip-\ntion. J.A. 7741–42. The Board also found that “[b]ecause\nQuake has failed to show why it did not have a full and fair\nopportunity to present evidence and argument with its\noriginal briefs, including from the cross-examination of Dr.\nGabriel conducted during the interference, it is not clear\nwhat due process was denied.” Id.\n In sum, we find that the Board was within its discre-\ntion to not reopen the record for the admission of the testi-\nmony at issue.\n CONCLUSION\n Because the shared specification of Quake’s ’018 patent\nand ’833 application does not disclose a method of using\nrandom MPS to determine fetal aneuploidy, substantial ev-\nidence supports the Board’s grant of Lo’s motions finding\nthe four claims of the ’018 patent and claim 25 of the ’833\n\fQUAKE v. LO 29\n\n\n\napplication unpatentable for lack of written description un-\nder § 112. We also find that the Board did not abuse its\ndiscretion in not admitting Dr. Gabriel’s testimony from\nthe district court proceedings. Accordingly, the Board’s\nthree interference decisions are\n AFFIRMED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Stephen QUAKE, Hei-Mun Christina Fan, Appellants v. Yuk-Ming Dennis LO, Rossa Wai Kwun Chiu, Kwan Chee Chan, Appellees\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-10\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n STEPHEN QUAKE, HEI-MUN CHRISTINA FAN,\\n Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\nYUK-MING DENNIS LO, ROSSA WAI KWUN CHIU,\\n KWAN CHEE CHAN,\\n Appellees\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1779, 2018-1780, 2018-1782\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 105,920,\\n105,923, 105,924.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 10, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n EDWARD R. REINES, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Red-\\nwood Shores, CA, argued for appellants. Also represented\\nby DEREK C. WALTER.\\n\\n CHARLES E. LIPSEY, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,\\nGarrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA, argued for appellees.\\nAlso represented by STEVEN O'CONNOR; JEFFREY DANIEL\\nSMYTH, Palo Alto, CA; MICHELE C. BOSCH, Washington,\\nDC.\\n ______________________\\n\\f2 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Before REYNA, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.\\nCHEN, Circuit Judge.\\n This appeal arises from a decision of the U.S. Patent\\nand Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board\\n(Board) finding the four claims of Dr. Stephen Quake and\\nDr. Christina Fan’s (collectively, Quake) U.S. Patent No.\\n8,008,018 and Claim 25 of their U.S. Patent Application\\nNo. 12/393,833 unpatentable for lack of written description\\nunder 35 U.S.C. § 112 as part of three interference proceed-\\nings.\\n The claims cover a method of determining the presence\\nof a chromosomal abnormality (called aneuploidy) in fe-\\ntuses by using massively parallel sequencing (MPS) tech-\\nnology to sequence deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fragments\\nfrom a sample of the mother’s blood that contains both ma-\\nternal and fetal DNA, identifying what chromosomes those\\nDNA fragments come from based on their sequences, and\\ndetermining if the test chromosome is over- or under-rep-\\nresented in the sample as compared to a reference chromo-\\nsome. The claims recite a random MPS method for the\\ndetection step, meaning that all of the DNA in the sample\\nis sequenced, as opposed to sequencing specific, targeted\\nsequences. Quake’s specification (shared by the ’018 pa-\\ntent and the ’833 application), however, only expressly de-\\nscribes detection of target sequences in its thirty-plus\\ncolumn specification.\\n The Board issued a first decision in 2015, finding the\\nrandom MPS claims at issue invalid for lack of written de-\\nscription. That decision was appealed to this court. This\\ncourt remanded to the Board to correct three errors and\\nredo its § 112 analysis. On remand, the Board found that\\na citation to a reference and a single sentence in Quake’s\\nspecification support random sequencing, but that the two,\\non their own, are insufficient to describe the claimed\\nmethod of determining fetal aneuploidy through random\\nMPS. The Board also found that the specification did not\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 3\\n\\n\\n\\ndescribe the final claimed comparison step in terms that\\nwould be applicable to random MPS, namely adjusting/nor-\\nmalizing for chromosome size before assessing the over- or\\nunder-representation of a chromosome. In this fact-specific\\ncase, substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings on\\nlack of adequate written description. The Board also did\\nnot reopen the record to admit expert testimony from an-\\nother proceeding, and we find that the Board did not abuse\\nits discretion in not doing so. Accordingly, we affirm.\\n BACKGROUND\\n The primary issue on appeal is whether the patent\\nspecification shared by the ’018 patent and the ’833 appli-\\ncation sufficiently describes using random MPS to deter-\\nmine fetal aneuploidy, such that it meets the requirements\\nof § 112.\\n A. Technology and Patents\\n Humans are normally born with twenty-three pairs of\\nchromosomes. Chromosomal aneuploidy describes the con-\\ndition where a fetus is born with either an abnormally high\\nor low number of chromosomes. For example, Down syn-\\ndrome is the presence of an extra chromosome 21. Histor-\\nically, testing for fetal aneuploidy required invasive and\\nrisky procedures. One such procedure, amniocentesis, in-\\nvolves sampling amniotic fluid from the womb with a nee-\\ndle. Alternative non-invasive methods existed, but their\\naccuracy was suboptimal.\\n The two competing inventors in the underlying inter-\\nferences on appeal—Stanford Professor Quake and Chi-\\nnese University of Hong Kong Professor Dennis Lo—both\\ndeveloped methods for diagnosing aneuploidies using cell-\\nfree fetal DNA (cff-DNA) from maternal blood samples. In\\n1997, Lo and a colleague discovered that cff-DNA circulates\\nin maternal blood in small amounts. This discovery made\\npossible new prenatal screening techniques for chromoso-\\nmal and other abnormalities, but researchers developing\\n\\f4 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ntechniques for assaying cff-DNA had to overcome interfer-\\nence from maternal DNA in the maternal blood sample.\\n Both Quake’s and Lo’s inventions, which are at the cen-\\nter of the interferences here, involve successful use of\\nmixed maternal and fetal DNA samples to determine fetal\\naneuploidy. Assuming the mother does not have aneu-\\nploidy, aneuploidy in the fetus would affect the mother’s\\nblood sample such that the ratio between the amount of\\nany given normal chromosome to the abnormal chromo-\\nsome would no longer be 1:1.\\n Additionally, both inventions incorporate MPS technol-\\nogy, which allows for sequencing of large amounts of DNA\\nsamples simultaneously. When a sequence is long enough,\\nit can be uniquely identified as originating from a certain\\nchromosome. Counting how many sequences come from\\nvarious chromosomes is useful for determining over- or un-\\nder-representation of a chromosome, thereby determining\\nthe presence of fetal aneuploidy. MPS can be performed by\\n“random” or “targeted” methods. In the random format, all\\nDNA in a sample is amplified, then sequenced. In the tar-\\ngeted format, only the target sequence(s) are amplified,\\nthen sequenced.\\n Quake is the named inventor of the ’018 patent. The\\npatent’s “Brief Summary of the Invention” states that the\\n“present invention is directed to a method of differential\\ndetection of target sequences in a mixture of maternal and\\nfetal genetic material.” ’018 patent, col. 4 ll. 43–45 (empha-\\nsis added). The ’018 patent specification outlines four steps\\nin the method: (1) obtaining a maternal tissue sample,\\npreferably blood; (2) distributing single DNA molecules\\nfrom this sample to a number of discrete reaction samples;\\n(3) “[d]etecting the presence of the target in the DNA in a\\nlarge number of reaction samples”; and (4) performing\\n“[q]uantitative analysis of the detection of the maternal\\nand fetal target sequences.” Id. at col. 8 l. 35–col. 9 l. 6\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 5\\n\\n\\n\\n(emphasis added); see also id. at col. 4 l. 39–col. 6 l. 60\\n(“Brief Summary of Invention”).\\n The ’018 patent specification consistently focuses on\\ndetection of targeted sequences, using the term “target”\\nmore than sixty times throughout the patent. See, e.g., id.\\nat col. 7 l. 62–col. 8 l. 17 (In Fig. 1A, “[s]hown in the wells\\nare targets representing chromosome 21 and 22,” “no target\\nDNA is found” in well 2A, “[a] single run will have numer-\\nous random variations, such as wells that have no target\\nsequence,” “samples with no target will clearly result in no\\npeak at all,” and “wells with two or more targets[] will give\\npeaks significantly higher.”) (emphases added); col. 8 l. 35–\\ncol. 9 l. 6 (“[T]he number of reaction samples is selected to\\ngive a statistically significant result for the number of cop-\\nies of a target in the DNA molecules;” “[d]etecting the pres-\\nence of the target in the DNA in a large number of reaction\\nsamples;” “[q]uantitative analysis of the detection of the\\nmaternal and fetal target sequences,” which in “some case\\ncases . . . may include targets to different regions, such as\\nprobes to a target on a chromosome suspected of being pre-\\nsent in an abnormal copy number (trisonomy) compared to\\na normal diploid chromosome, which is used as a control.”)\\n(emphases added); col. 11 ll. 40–43 (For digital PCR, “[a]\\nreaction sample in general will contain a single template\\nmolecule (haplotype), two target molecules (diploid) or\\nthree target molecules (trisomy).”) (emphases added); col.\\n14 ll. 27–28 (describing detection through digital PCR via\\n“probes[] which become fluorescent on binding to the target\\nsequence(s)”) (emphasis added); col. 12 ll. 28–30, col. 19 ll.\\n10–12, 51–52 (describing detection by sequencing, includ-\\ning MPS, as “carried out by directly sequencing a region of\\ninterest to determine if it is the target sequence of interest,”\\n“sequenc[ing] the target sequence in the reaction sample\\ndirectly,” “sequenc[ing] . . . by labeled probes to detect a\\ntarget specific sequence,” and “[l]onger sequences [being\\nable to] uniquely identify more particular targets”) (empha-\\nses added); col. 21 ll. 8–12 (explaining the quantitative\\n\\f6 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nanalysis step as follows: “[i]f chromosome A is euploid and\\nrepresents an internal control, and chromosome B is aneu-\\nploid and is the target to be measured, then one can amplify\\nrepresentative segments from both chromosomes via digi-\\ntal PCR” and “the number of target sequences needed for\\nstatistical[ly significant] sequences may be reduced by us-\\ning controls sequences”) (emphases added); col. 22 ll. 26\\n(providing “[e]xamples of diseases where the target se-\\nquence may exist” in one copy in the maternal DNA, but\\nwith two copies in the fetal DNA) (emphasis added); col. 25\\nll. 49–col. 28 ll. 43 (describing an exemplary detection\\nmethod with two target sequences: amyloid for test chro-\\nmosome 21 and GAPDH for control chromosome 12).\\n The specification states that the digital polymerase\\nchain reaction (PCR) technique is the preferred embodi-\\nment for amplifying and detecting target sequences. See\\nid. at col. 12 ll. 18–20. In digital PCR, a mixed maternal\\nand fetal DNA sample is distributed amongst thousands of\\nreaction wells. Known target DNA sequences—usually one\\nsequence from a reference chromosome and one sequence\\nfrom the chromosome being tested for aneuploidy—are am-\\nplified by target-specific primers located in those wells. If\\neither target sequence is present in any particular individ-\\nual reaction well, it will be amplified by PCR (positive re-\\nsult); if no target sequence is present in the reaction well,\\nno sequence will be amplified (negative result). Id. at col.\\n8 ll. 52–56. The reaction wells are then tested for the pres-\\nence of the target sequences. Id. at col. 7 l. 62–col. 8 l. 9.\\n The specification also identifies some alternative detec-\\ntion methods to digital PCR, one of which is MPS. Id. at\\ncol. 19 ll. 5–12. Only two paragraphs in the thirty-plus col-\\numns in the specification relate to MPS. Id. at col 19 l. 48–\\ncol. 20 l. 20. This appeal focuses on the content of those\\ntwo paragraphs; the relevant text is reproduced in the dis-\\ncussion below.\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 7\\n\\n\\n\\n Either technique, digital PCR or MPS, can be used to\\ncount the number of chromosomes containing the targeted\\nsequence versus the number of chromosomes containing\\nthe reference chromosome sequence in the sample. The\\n’018 patent specification describes using this molecular\\ncounting data to run statistical analysis. Id. at col. 21 ll.\\n1–45. The number of positive results from each target se-\\nquence leads to a ratio of the reference and test chromo-\\nsomes. Id. If the ratio of the two chromosomes is not 1:1\\nand the deviation is statistically significant, the fetus is de-\\ntermined to have aneuploidy. See, e.g., id. at col. 28 ll. 5–\\n25 (Table 1). The specification describes running a “Stu-\\ndent’s T-test” and z-test/chi-squared test to analyze the sta-\\ntistical significance of a deviation from the expected 1:1\\nratio. Id. at col. 5 l. 64–col. 6 l. 3, col. 28 ll. 5–34.\\n Quake claimed his method of determining fetal aneu-\\nploidy by detecting target sequences in an application filed\\non February 2, 2007, and filed a continuation as Applica-\\ntion No. 12/393,803 in February 2009. The original claims\\nof Quake’s ’803 application explicitly recited methods that\\nrequired the detection of “target sequences.” In 2011,\\nQuake split the ’803 application into multiple applications.\\nIn the application which later issued as the ’018 patent,\\nQuake canceled all pending claims and added new claims\\ncovering the use of random MPS to determine fetal aneu-\\nploidy. J.A. 4134–42. Representative issued claim 1 re-\\ncites:\\n 1. A method for determining presence or absence of\\n fetal aneuploidy in a maternal tissue sample com-\\n prising fetal and maternal genomic DNA, wherein\\n the method comprises:\\n a. obtaining a mixture of fetal and mater-\\n nal genomic DNA from said maternal tis-\\n sue sample:\\n b. conducting massively parallel DNA se-\\n quencing of DNA fragments randomly\\n\\f8 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n selected from the mixture of fetal and ma-\\n ternal genomic DNA of step a) to determine\\n the sequence of said DNA fragments;\\n c. identifying chromosomes to which the se-\\n quences obtained in step b) belong;\\n d. using the data of step c) to compare an\\n amount of at least one first chromosome in\\n said mixture of maternal and fetal genomic\\n DNA to an amount of at least one second\\n chromosome in said mixture of maternal\\n and fetal genomic DNA, wherein said at\\n least one first chromosome is presumed to\\n be euploid in the fetus, wherein said at\\n least one second chromosome is suspected\\n to be aneuploid in the fetus, thereby deter-\\n mining the presence or absence of said fetal\\n aneuploidy.\\n’018 patent, col. 33 ll. 48–67. Claim 25 of Application No.\\n12/393,833, another application that continued from the\\n’803 application, also recites using random MPS to deter-\\nmine fetal aneuploidy.\\n Also in 2007, Lo, along with Rossa Wai Kwun Chu and\\nKwan Chee Chan (collectively, Lo), filed a patent applica-\\ntion that undisputedly describes and claims a method of\\nusing “random” MPS to determine fetal aneuploidy. The\\napplication was published in 2009. Lo’s application is de-\\nvoted to, and describes in considerable detail, randomly se-\\nquencing the entire sample via MPS after fragmentation\\nand division. See J.A. 4159–60; see also, e.g., J.A. 4154–59\\n¶¶ 14, 21, 48, 55, 58, 67, 70–71 (repeatedly stating that “a\\nfraction of the [whole] genome” in the sample is sequenced).\\nThe sequencing data is mapped, based on known sequences\\nof the human genome, to determine which chromosome\\neach sequenced fragment is from. However, since some\\nchromosomes are longer and would contribute more frag-\\nments to the random sample, Lo’s application explains that\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 9\\n\\n\\n\\na skilled artisan would need to adjust for chromosome size,\\ni.e., normalize the data by the length of each chromosome,\\nbefore being able to accurately determine the presence of\\nfetal aneuploidy. See J.A. 4158 ¶¶ 69–70. Lo filed U.S.\\nProvisional Application No. 60/951,438 describing this\\nmethod on July 23, 2007, and subsequently filed U.S. Pa-\\ntent Application Nos. 13/070,275, 12/178,181, 13/070,240,\\n12/614,350, 13/070,251, and 13/417,119 on the same inven-\\ntion.\\n B. Procedural History\\n Both Quake and Lo requested interferences to deter-\\nmine who first invented the random MPS method and\\nwhen the method was invented. In early 2013, the Board\\ndeclared three interferences between Quake’s patent and\\napplication and Lo’s applications. 1 In each proceeding, Lo\\nattacked the claims of Quake’s ’018 patent or ’833 applica-\\ntion as unpatentable for lack of written description. Alt-\\nhough the ’018 patent specification is over thirty columns,\\nMPS is discussed in just two paragraphs at columns 19 to\\n20. In Quake’s view, these two paragraphs not only teach\\nMPS as a sequencing tool, but also describe a second detec-\\ntion methodology—i.e., random sequencing—distinct from\\ntargeted sequencing. The Board, however, disagreed with\\nQuake and granted Lo’s written description motions in all\\nthree interferences and, in 2015, found Quake’s claims un-\\npatentable for lack of written description.\\n Quake appealed the Board’s decisions to the U.S. Dis-\\ntrict Court for the Northern District of California under 35\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Interference No. 105,920 involved Lo Application\\nNo. 13/070,275 and the ’018 patent. Interference No.\\n105,923 involved Lo Application Nos. 12/178,181,\\n13/070,240, 12/614,350, and 13/070,251 and Quake’s ’833\\napplication. Interference No. 105,924 involved Lo Applica-\\ntion No. 13/417,119 and Quake’s ’833 application.\\n\\f10 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nU.S.C. § 146. Some expert discovery took place before the\\ncase was removed to this court once the law mandated that\\nthe district court lacked jurisdiction to review the Board’s\\ninterference decisions. See Biogen MA, Inc. v. Japanese\\nFound. for Cancer Research, 785 F.3d 648 (Fed. Cir. 2015)\\n(holding that this court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction\\nover Board decisions), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1450 (2016).\\n In 2017, this court vacated the Board’s 2015 decisions\\nand remanded with instructions for the Board: (1) to con-\\nsider whether the patent’s written description at columns\\n19 to 20 discloses random MPS, as opposed to the Board’s\\n2015 finding that the description in those columns “does\\nnot preclude targeted MPS”; (2) to explain the meaning of\\nvarious phrases in that portion of the patent specification,\\nincluding “using attachment of randomly fragmented ge-\\nnomic DNA,” “solid phase amplification,” “~1,000 copies of\\ntemplate,” “templates,” and “[t]hese templates are se-\\nquenced using four-color DNA sequencing-by-synthesis\\ntechnology”; and (3) to examine whether a skilled artisan\\nwould have known, as of the priority date, that the specifi-\\ncation’s reference to Illumina products meant random MPS\\nsequencing based on record evidence describing Illumina\\nproducts or any other random MPS products existing as of\\nthe filing date. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ.\\nv. Chinese Univ. of Hong Kong, 860 F.3d 1367, 1377–79\\n(Fed. Cir. 2017).\\n On remand, the Board held a conference call with the\\nparties and issued an order declining to reopen the record,\\nin relevant part denying Quake’s request for admission of\\ntestimony by Lo’s expert from the terminated district court\\nproceedings. J.A. 7576–620; Interference No. 105,920, Or-\\nder–New Briefing and Evidence 37 C.F.R. § 41.104(a) (De-\\ncember 12, 2017). The Board issued its remand decisions\\non December 20, 2017. J.A. 6, 31, 53. The Board’s analysis\\nwas substantively identical in each interference, so for pur-\\nposes of this appeal, we refer primarily to the Board’s\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 11\\n\\n\\n\\nfindings as to the ’018 patent and treat them as representa-\\ntive of the Board’s findings as to the ’833 application.\\n In its decisions, the Board first followed this court’s in-\\nstructions. It focused on whether the ’018 patent describes\\nrandom MPS, rather than on whether its written descrip-\\ntion does not preclude targeted MPS. The Board explained\\nthe various phrases in the two MPS-related paragraphs at\\ncolumns 19 to 20 in the specification as describing MPS\\ngenerally, without reference to targeted versus random\\nMPS. The Board also credited an admission from Lo that\\n“Illumina sequencing platforms [referenced in column 19 of\\nthe ’018 patent specification] can perform either random or\\ntargeted DNA sequencing, depending on whether predeter-\\nmined target DNA fragments are specifically identified or\\ntargeted prior to sequencing,” but found no record evidence\\nof the Illumina products’ capabilities as of the date of in-\\nvention. J.A. 11.\\n The Board then looked elsewhere in the two MPS par-\\nagraphs of the ’018 patent specification for evidence of writ-\\nten description of the ’018 claims:\\n [Passage A:] A methodology useful in the present\\n invention platform is based on massively parallel\\n sequencing of millions of fragments using attach-\\n ment of randomly fragmented genomic DNA to a\\n planar, optically transparent surface and solid\\n phase amplification to create a high density se-\\n quencing flow cell with millions of clusters, each\\n containing ~1,000 copies of template per sq. cm.\\n These templates are sequenced using four-color\\n DNA sequencing-by-synthesis technology. See,\\n products offered by Illumina, Inc., San Diego Calif.\\n Also, see US 2003/0022207 to Balasubramanian,\\n et al., published Jan. 30, 2003, entitled “Arrayed\\n polynucleotides and their use in genome analysis.”\\n [Passage B:] Sequencing may be combined with\\n amplification-based methods in a microfluidic chip\\n\\f12 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n having reaction chambers for both PCR and micro-\\n scopic template-based sequencing. Only about 30\\n bp of random sequence information are needed to\\n identify a sequence as belonging to a specific human\\n chromosome. Longer sequences can uniquely iden-\\n tify more particular targets. An algorithm for de-\\n signing unique sequences is described in Yamada\\n et al. illustrative of software methods that can be\\n used to identify a sequence in comparison to the\\n known genome sequence. See, also Zhu et al., de-\\n scribing a single-molecule-based technology for\\n studying mRNA.\\nJ.A. 9–10, 14 (quoting ’018 patent, col. 19 l. 59–col. 20 l. 20\\nand referring to the first paragraph as Passage A and the\\nsecond paragraph as Passage B) (emphases added).\\n The Board found that the citation to Balasubramanian\\nin Passage A “provides some[] disclosure of massively par-\\nallel sequencing of DNA fragments selected randomly”\\nbased on the testimony of Lo’s expert, Dr. Gabriel. J.A. 13\\n(citing J.A. 2828 (Gabriel Depo. at 60:18–22)). The Board\\nthen found that Passage B “expressly describe[s] random\\nsequencing” because it uses the phrase “random sequence\\ninformation” in the sentence “about 30 bp of random se-\\nquence information are needed to identify a sequence as\\nbelonging to a specific human chromosome.” ’018 patent,\\ncol. 20 ll. 7–9.\\n But the Board subsequently found that Balasubrama-\\nnian and the “30 bp of random sequence information are\\nneeded to identify a sequence” sentence are not sufficient\\nto meet the requirements of § 112. The Board character-\\nized passages A and B as providing “some express descrip-\\ntion of individual elements recited in Quake’s claims,” but\\nfound these disclosures “[in]sufficient to have demon-\\nstrated [to a skilled artisan] that the inventors were in pos-\\nsession of a method of determining fetal aneuploidy with\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 13\\n\\n\\n\\nrandom massively parallel sequencing as claimed by\\nQuake.” J.A. 15 (emphasis added).\\n Specifically, the Board found that although the “the ex-\\npress language describes some of the elements of the\\nclaimed method, . . . it is not sufficient to provide a written\\ndescription under 35 U.S.C. § 112” because the ’018 patent\\n(1) “does not tie these elements together into a complete\\nmethod” and (2) “does not explain how to use the data from\\nrandom massively parallel sequencing of a mixture of ge-\\nnomic DNA to determine fetal aneuploidy.” Id. First, the\\nBoard contrasted the scant information in the ’018 patent\\nregarding random MPS to the thirty columns of detailed,\\nstep-by-step description of targeted detection and targeted\\nMPS, tying the steps together into a complete method. J.A.\\n15–17. Second, the Board explained that nothing in the\\n’018 patent suggests to a skilled artisan to adjust for chro-\\nmosome size when doing the comparison claimed in step\\nD—a statistical normalization step necessary when using\\nrandom MPS data to determine the presence or absence of\\naneuploidy, as disclosed in Lo’s applications and explained\\nabove. J.A. 17–22. Quake argued that a skilled artisan\\nwould have known how to do so, but the Board found that\\n“Quake did not direct [it] to a portion of the ’018 patent that\\ndescribes the need to do so,” and therefore, a skilled artisan\\n“would not have considered that the inventors of the ’018\\npatent contemplated a method requiring” normalizing for\\nchromosome size. J.A. 21 (emphasis added).\\n As in its 2015 decision, the Board again granted Lo’s\\nwritten description motions and found Quake’s claims un-\\npatentable.\\n Quake appeals both the Board’s written description\\nfindings and its decision not to admit testimony from the\\n\\f14 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ndistrict court proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant\\nto 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). 2\\n DISCUSSION\\n I.\\n Compliance with the written description requirement\\nof § 112 is a question of fact, judged from the perspective of\\na skilled artisan as of the patent’s filing date. Ariad\\nPharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1355 (Fed.\\nCir. 2010) (en banc). Accordingly, in an appeal from the\\nBoard, this court examines whether the Board’s decision is\\nsupported by substantial evidence. Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d\\n1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “A finding is supported by sub-\\nstantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the ev-\\nidence to support the finding.” Redline Detection, LLC v.\\nStar Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 449 (Fed. Cir. 2015)\\n(citation omitted).\\n “The essence of the written description requirement is\\nthat a patent applicant, as part of the bargain with the pub-\\nlic, must describe his or her invention so that the public\\nwill know what it is and that he or she has truly made the\\nclaimed invention.” AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v.\\nJanssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014).\\nThe written description requirement is satisfied if the in-\\nventor “convey[s] with reasonable clarity to those skilled in\\nthe art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in\\npossession of the invention,’ and demonstrate[s] that by\\ndisclosure in the specification of the patent.” Centocor\\n\\n\\n 2 This court has exclusive jurisdiction over an appeal\\nfrom a decision of the Board in an interference declared af-\\nter September 15, 2012 pursuant to the version of 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1295(a)(4)(A) as it existed on September 15, 2012. Bio-\\ngen, 785 F.3d at 654; Technical Corrections—Leahy-Smith\\nAmerica Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-274, 126 Stat. 2456\\n§ 1(k)(3).\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 15\\n\\n\\n\\nOrtho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1348\\n(Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoff-\\nmann–La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).\\n “[T]he purpose of the written description requirement\\nis to prevent an applicant from later asserting that he in-\\nvented that which he did not,” and the requirement is par-\\nticularly important when, as here, claims are added later\\nduring prosecution in response to development by others.\\nAgilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383\\n(Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, the first time Quake tried to cover\\nrandom MPS with this specification was after the publica-\\ntion of Lo’s patent application directed to random MPS:\\nQuake then canceled all his pending claims and replaced\\nthem with claims covering random MPS, creating a mis-\\nmatch between the claims and the originally filed specifi-\\ncation.\\n An invention is usually expressly described in the spec-\\nification; there is no reasonable argument for that being\\nthe case here. Though the Board found some express dis-\\nclosure of two elements of the claimed invention in Pas-\\nsages A and B, the term “random MPS” is never mentioned\\nin the ’018 patent, the process of amplifying all the DNA in\\na sample before sequencing is never described, and Quake\\nadmits that there is no embodiment describing the statis-\\ntical analysis needed to determine fetal aneuploidy from\\ndata generated by random MPS. Oral Arg. at 9:39–53. The\\nmethod as a whole is not expressly described.\\n However, “ipsis verbis disclosure is not necessary to\\nsatisfy the written description requirement of section 112.”\\nFujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570 (Fed. Cir.\\n1996). “[T]he disclosure need only reasonably convey to\\npersons skilled in the art that the inventor had possession\\nof the subject matter in question.” Id. This court has anal-\\nogized such a disclosure as “mark[ing] trails by making\\nblaze marks on . . . trees” to “find[] one’s way through the\\nwoods” of a specification such that a skilled artisan would\\n\\f16 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nbe able to follow that trail and understand what the inven-\\ntors had invented. In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 994–95\\n(CCPA 1967). The Board made such an inquiry here.\\n We address the Board’s findings as to the Balasubra-\\nmanian citation in Passage A and the single sentence in\\nPassage B, and then its treatment of the chromosome size\\nadjustment necessary for claimed step D.\\n We find that there is substantial evidence for the\\nBoard’s finding that Balasubramanian supports random\\nMPS and clarify that the record indicates that Balasubra-\\nmanian also supports targeted MPS.\\n Balasubramanian is directed to a method of MPS that\\ninvolves immobilizing polynucleotides (e.g., DNA) to an ar-\\nray and sequencing the polynucleotides to detect differ-\\nences between sequences. U.S. Patent Publication No.\\n2003/0022207 A1 at Abstract. In particular, the publica-\\ntion focuses on finding single polynucleotide polymor-\\nphisms (SNPs). See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ [0006], [0034], [0069],\\n[0070]. SNPs tend to occur at unique locations, so identi-\\nfying them in DNA samples can indicate which chromo-\\nsome the polynucleotide belongs to. Significantly, the\\namplification step that differentiates targeted and random\\nMPS 3 is a preparatory step in the Illumina methods that\\ncomes before any of the steps disclosed in Balasubrama-\\nnian. J.A. 5763. Consequently, as Lo’s expert Dr. Gabriel\\nexplains, the teachings of Balasubramanian could be used\\nin either random or targeted MPS, depending on the na-\\nture of the preceding amplification step. Id.\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 As explained above and in our previous opinion, the\\nmain difference between random and targeted MPS is that\\nin targeted MPS, the target sequence(s) are specifically\\namplified before sequencing, whereas in random MPS, all\\nDNA in the sample is amplified. Stanford, 860 F.3d at\\n1370.\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 17\\n\\n\\n\\n So, while we agree with Quake and the Board that Dr.\\nGabriel admitted that Balasubramanian “supports ran-\\ndomly massively parallel sequencing,” J.A. 2828, record ev-\\nidence cited by the Board establishes that\\nBalasubramanian supports targeted sequencing as well.\\nDr. Gabriel stated that “Balasubramanian discloses both\\ntargeted and random sequencing approaches.” J.A. 5763\\n(emphasis added). The Board previously credited this tes-\\ntimony when discussing Illumina products based on the\\nBalasubramanian technology. 4 Stanford, 860 F.3d at\\n1372–73 (noting that the Board relied on “Dr. Ga-\\nbriel’s statement that the Illumina platform referenced in\\nthe specification could be used for both random and tar-\\ngeted sequencing”). The Board also cited to this fact in the\\ndecisions now on appeal. J.A. 11, 36, 58 (citing a “Material\\nFact” in Lo’s motions that “Illumina sequencing platforms\\ncan perform either random or targeted DNA sequencing,\\ndepending on whether predetermined target DNA frag-\\nments are specifically identified or targeted prior to se-\\nquencing” (emphasis added)). 5 Further, as Lo points out,\\nthe Balasubramanian reference is cited in the ’018 patent\\nspecification for “sequenc[ing] using four-color DNA se-\\nquencing-by-synthesis technology,” a statement applicable\\nto sequencing generally, rather than random versus tar-\\ngeted sequencing. ’018 patent, col. 19 l. 65–col. 20 l. 3; Oral\\nArg. at 22:04–22.\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 The ’833 application notes that “the assignee of the\\nBalasubramanian PG Publication, Solexa, was acquired by\\nIllumina,” and that Balasubramanian’s teachings form a\\npartial basis of Illumina’s commercial sequencing system\\ndescribed in the Quake’s specification. J.A. 4330 n.2.\\n 5 There is no evidence in the record that skilled arti-\\nsans disputed that MPS could be used in either random or\\ntargeted sequencing approaches at the time of filing of\\nQuake’s patent application.\\n\\f18 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n In sum, we agree with the Board that the citation to\\nBalasubramanian in Passage A “provides some . . . disclo-\\nsure of massively parallel sequencing of DNA fragments\\nselected randomly,” J.A. 13, but note, in line with the\\nBoard’s other findings, that skilled artisans would have un-\\nderstood the specification to support targeted MPS as well,\\nsee J.A. 11–12 (Board rejecting Quake’s argument that\\n“passage A does not describe targeted sequencing and\\ntherefore must describe random sequencing”). Our previ-\\nous decision did not reject a finding that Quake’s specifica-\\ntion supports targeted sequencing; rather we explained\\nthat Quake’s description “might be able to disclose both\\nrandom and targeted sequencing” and therefore directed\\nthe Board on remand to “examine whether a [skilled arti-\\nsan] would have understood that the ’018 patent’s specifi-\\ncation disclosed random MPS sequencing, as opposed to\\nwhether the specification did not preclude targeted MPS\\nsequencing.” Stanford, 860 F.3d at 1378, 1379. That a\\nskilled artisan would understand Balasubramanian to sup-\\nport targeted sequencing as well makes the Quake specifi-\\ncation’s citation to Balasubramanian consistent with the\\nrest of its discussion of detecting target sequences.\\n As for the disclosure of Passage B, the Board does not\\ncite to any record evidence that a skilled artisan would un-\\nderstand the sentence—“about 30 bp of random sequence\\ninformation are needed to identify a sequence as belonging\\nto a specific human chromosome”—as referring to random\\nMPS. First, the Board found elsewhere that simply using\\nthe word “random” is not enough to indicate random MPS.\\nSee J.A. 11 (finding that the phrase “randomly fragmented\\ngenomic DNA” from Passage A is “not necessarily the\\nsame” as the phrase referring to random MPS in the\\nclaims). Second, the 30 bp statement precedes the sen-\\ntence, “Longer sequences can uniquely identify more par-\\nticular targets,” indicating that the 30 bp language covers\\nidentifying the chromosomes of origin for DNA fragments\\ngenerated through targeted MPS. ’018 patent, col. 20 ll. 9–\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 19\\n\\n\\n\\n10 (emphasis added); J.A. 4755, ¶ 80 (Lo’s expert stating\\nthe 30 bp “statement refers to the minimum size of a\\nunique target sequence in the genome for use in amplifica-\\ntion, particularly given the statements in the following sen-\\ntence[]”). But the passage could also cover identifying the\\nchromosomes of origin for DNA fragments generated\\nthrough random MPS. We agree with the Board that the\\n30 bp sentence is more generally “about the number of base\\npairs needed to identify the chromosomal origin of a se-\\nquence.” J.A. 16. There is no indication in the record that\\nthe length of a sequence needed to identify the chromosome\\nof origin is any different for DNA fragments sequenced via\\nrandom and targeted MPS.\\n However, given the specification’s repeated discussion\\nof targeted sequencing, a bare citation to Balasubramanian\\nand use of the phrase “about 30 bp of random sequence in-\\nformation are needed to identify a sequence” in the context\\nof this patent would be a highly elliptical, cryptic way to\\ncommunicate possession of a second method of sequencing\\nto determine fetal aneuploidy. An alternative explanation\\nconsistent with the entire patent specification is that\\nQuake invented using targeted MPS for determining fetal\\naneuploidy and wrote the ’018 patent specification to de-\\nscribe targeted MPS, among other ways of performing tar-\\ngeted detection such as digital PCR. Balasubramanian\\nwas cited in Passage A to support a sentence describing de-\\ntection via sequencing with four-color DNA sequencing-by-\\nsynthesis technology. That method of detection would re-\\nsult in a ratio of two targeted sequences that would be an-\\nalyzed, as described in the specification, for statistically\\nsignificant deviations from a 1:1 ratio to determine fetal\\naneuploidy. ’018 patent, col. 21 ll. 1–45, col. 28 ll. 5–34.\\n In light of the limited disclosure value of the single Bal-\\nasubramanian citation and the “about 30 bp of random se-\\nquence information are needed to identify a sequence”\\nsentence, substantial evidence supports the Board’s find-\\ning that those two items together are not adequate to\\n\\f20 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nconvey using random MPS to determine fetal aneuploidy\\nas claimed. In terms of Ruschig’s analogy of the written\\ndescription requirement being akin to creating a trail\\nthrough the woods, the two are (at most) faint “blaze\\nmarks” for determining fetal aneuploidy by random MPS,\\nwhile the rest of the specification marks a clear trail to tar-\\ngeted MPS. Ruschig, 379 F.2d at 994–95.\\n As for claim step D, as the Board recognized, if the ’018\\npatent had contained some description of adjusting for\\nchromosome size when comparing the data resulting from\\nthe MPS step, then a skilled artisan may have had an in-\\ndirect, but clear indication that the inventor contemplated\\na method of using random MPS to determine fetal aneu-\\nploidy. But the ’018 patent only describes statistical anal-\\nyses, such as a “Student’s T-test” and z-test/chi-squared\\ntest, in the context of assessing divergence from a 1:1 ratio\\nbetween a targeted sequence and a sequence from a refer-\\nence chromosome. ’018 patent, col. 5 l. 64–col. 6 l. 3, col. 28\\nll. 5–34. There is no discussion of adjusting for chromo-\\nsome size before performing those statistical analyses. We\\nagree with the Board that “[i]n the absence of a description\\nof such analysis, [the] teachings in the specification about\\n[the Balasubramanian] equipment useful for random mas-\\nsively parallel sequencing and techniques for determining\\nsequences are not sufficient to demonstrate possession of\\nthe claimed method.” J.A. 21 (emphasis added).\\n On appeal, Quake incorrectly characterizes the Board’s\\ndecision as finding that all but the normalization for chro-\\nmosome size in claim step D are disclosed in the ’018 patent\\nand then focuses solely on why the Board’s step D finding\\nshould be reversed. Lo counters, and we agree, that the\\nBoard’s findings did not go so far. The Board found no ex-\\npress description or sufficient blazemarks of the claimed\\nmethod as a whole and also relied on the chromosome size\\nadjustment issue as a key missing disclosure that could\\nhave cured Quake’s written description problem. Under\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 21\\n\\n\\n\\nthis understanding of the Board’s decision, we reject each\\nof Quake’s six specific arguments.\\n First, Quake argues that conducting statistical analy-\\nsis on random MPS data was known and predictable, and\\nnot a “mere wish or plan” as in Centocor Ortho Biotech, 636\\nF.3d 1341, 1351 and Regents of the University of California\\nv. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The\\nBoard cites to these two decisions when concluding that\\n“the inventors had only ‘a mere wish or plan’ to use this\\nnew technology in their invention.” J.A. 22. We under-\\nstand this statement as characterizing the two-paragraph,\\nvery-brief suggestion of using MPS (as an alternative to\\ndigital PCR) in the ’018 patent as a “mere wish or plan” to\\nuse MPS in its method of detecting targeted sequences,\\nsuch that the details could be filled in by a skilled artisan.\\nBut that view as to the use of MPS technology for targeted\\nsequencing is consistent with the Board’s core finding that\\nthe patent fails to reasonably convey using MPS to detect\\nthe chromosomal origin of “DNA fragments randomly se-\\nlected from the mixture of fetal and maternal genomic\\nDNA” to determine the presence or absence of fetal aneu-\\nploidy, as claimed. ’018 patent, col. 33 ll. 48–67.\\n Second, Quake argues that the normalization (chromo-\\nsome size adjustment) details necessarily required for us-\\ning random MPS data to perform the comparison step\\nclaimed in step D are unclaimed limitations and thus did\\nnot need to be described to satisfy § 112. The language of\\nclaim step D requires using the data from random MPS (re-\\ncited in claim steps B and C) “to compare an amount of at\\nleast one first chromosome in said mixture of maternal and\\nfetal genomic DNA to an amount of at least one second chro-\\nmosome in said mixture of maternal and fetal genomic\\nDNA, wherein said at least one first chromosome is pre-\\nsumed to be euploid in the fetus, wherein said at least one\\nsecond chromosome is suspected to be aneuploid in the fe-\\ntus, thereby determining the presence or absence of said fe-\\ntal aneuploidy.” ’018 patent, col. 33 ll. 59–67 (emphases\\n\\f22 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nadded). Quake argues that the claim language only re-\\nquires a comparison of two chromosome amounts to deter-\\nmine aneuploidy and cites three passages from the\\nspecification as disclosing how to conduct such a compari-\\nson:\\n Quantitative analysis of the detection of the mater-\\n nal and fetal target sequences. In some cases this\\n may include targets to different regions, such as\\n probes to a target on a chromosome suspected of be-\\n ing present in an abnormal copy number (trison-\\n omy) compared to a normal diploid chromosome,\\n which is used as a control.\\nId. at col. 9 ll. 1–6 (emphases added).\\n A control sequence is used to distinguish an abnor-\\n mal increase in the target sequence, e.g., a trison-\\n omy. Thus there is a differential detection of target\\n sequences, one of which is chosen to represent a\\n normal genotype present in both mother and off-\\n spring, and one of which is chosen for detection of\\n an abnormal genotype in the offspring, where the\\n target sequence in the offspring will be different\\n from that of the mother, e.g. in trisomy.\\nId. at col. 7 ll. 54–61 (emphases added).\\n The presence or absence of different target se-\\n quences in the discrete samples is detected; and the\\n results are analyzed whereby the number of results\\n from the discrete samples will provide data suffi-\\n cient to obtain results distinguishing different tar-\\n get sequences. In one aspect, the method involves\\n an analysis of a trisomy. In this method, one of the\\n different target sequences (e.g. chromosome 21) is\\n diploid in maternal genetic material and aneuploid\\n in fetal genetic material and another of the differ-\\n ent target sequences (e.g. chromosome 12) is dip-\\n loid in both maternal and fetal genetic material.\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 23\\n\\n\\n\\nId. at col. 5 ll. 21–31 (emphases added). These passages\\nspecifically recite comparison of “target sequences,” which\\ncannot be random MPS. And we disagree with Quake’s un-\\nderstanding that the Board required disclosure of the nor-\\nmalization step to show written description of the claimed\\nmethod. Rather, the Board found that to establish posses-\\nsion of random MPS for determining fetal aneuploidy, such\\na disclosure would have helped communicate possession of\\nthe claimed subject matter, given that the specification\\nlacks an express disclosure of the random sequencing-\\nbased invention. J.A. 17. This is because the normaliza-\\ntion step is relevant for data generated from random se-\\nquencing and not targeted sequencing. J.A. 17–18.\\n Third, Quake argues that because the claim language\\ndoes not require normalizing for chromosome size, the al-\\nleged lack of disclosure is more of an enablement issue than\\na written description issue. But the Board cited the lack of\\ndisclosure not because normalization is required by the\\nclaim language of step D, but because disclosure of normal-\\nization would have conveyed to a skilled artisan reading\\nthe specification that the inventor contemplated a compar-\\nison step for a random sequencing method, in addition to\\nthe specification’s very clear disclosure of a comparison\\nstep for a targeted sequencing method. This missing de-\\nscription could have provided a supporting blazemark, but\\nwithout it, there is no description of “using the data of step\\nc)” obtained by random MPS to compare chromosomal\\namounts and “determin[e] the presence or absence of . . .\\nfetal aneuploidy.” ’018 patent, col. 33 ll. 59–67 (claim 1,\\nstep D).\\n Fourth, Quake argues that the need to normalize ran-\\ndom MPS results was known to a skilled artisan in 2007\\nand therefore not necessary to describe in the specification.\\nAppellants’ Op. Br. 38, 43–44 (characterizing it as an im-\\nplementation detail that did not need to be described); Ap-\\npellants’ Reply Br. 8, 10 (same); Oral Arg. at 7:01–03\\n(same). Quake argues that MPS (generally) was known in\\n\\f24 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nthe art, that a skilled artisan would recognize that the 1:1\\nratio analysis detailed in the specification would not work\\nfor random sequencing without modification due to differ-\\nences in chromosome sizes, and that a skilled artisan would\\nresort to their knowledge of normalization to fill in the de-\\ntails. Appellants’ Op. Br. 44. The Board agreed that a\\nskilled artisan would have known how to normalize the\\nrandom sequence data to account for chromosome size if\\nthe artisan understood that there was a need to do so—i.e.,\\nif the artisan understood that using random MPS to deter-\\nmine fetal aneuploidy was being described by the rest of\\nthe written description. J.A. 21. As explained above, the\\nBoard reasonably found that the Balasubramanian citation\\nand the “about 30 bp of random sequence information are\\nneeded to identify a sequence” sentence are not adequate\\nto do so.\\n Fifth, Quake argues that the statistical steps described\\nin the ’018 patent are sufficient to describe step D. The\\ndisclosure explains, in the context of a simplified digital\\nPCR example, that one expects to find an increased num-\\nber of amplified DNA fragments corresponding to an ab-\\nnormal chromosome compared to a normal chromosome.\\n’018 patent, col. 21 ll. 4–21. Quake argues that a skilled\\nartisan would have understood this passage to describe the\\nconcept of using molecular counting and basic statistical\\nanalysis to assess over- or under-representation of the test\\nchromosome in the DNA, indicating aneuploidy. However,\\nthere is no explicit discussion of normalizing the molecular\\ncounting data, i.e., adjusting the statistical analysis for\\nchromosome size. J.A. 20–21. And the issue of whether a\\nskilled artisan would have thought to do so turns on the\\nstrength of the blazemarks disclosing random MPS in Pas-\\nsages A and B, which we explain above are insufficient for\\na skilled artisan to recognize.\\n Finally, Quake argues that the Board erroneously\\nshifted the burden of proof from Lo to Quake by “not iden-\\ntifying any evidence submitted by Lo, or otherwise present\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 25\\n\\n\\n\\nin the record, that a person of ordinary skill in the art\\nwould have been unable to recognize promptly the need for\\nthis basic [chromosome size adjustment/normalization]\\nstep to be performed.” Appellants’ Op. Br. 46. The Board\\nnoted in its 2015 decisions that “[t]o prevail, Lo must pro-\\nvide sufficient evidence to persuade us that the Quake ’018\\npatent is so lacking of written description that one of skill\\nin the art at the time would not have recognized the inven-\\ntion Quake claims.” J.A. 1007, 1034, 1063. On remand,\\nthe Board determined that step D of Quake’s claims was\\nnot supported by the ’018 patent specification based on Lo’s\\narguments and expert testimony explaining that random\\nMPS requires normalization for chromosome size and ex-\\nplaining why the ’018 patent does not describe such analy-\\nsis. J.A. 17–22. We do not find that the Board erroneously\\nshifted the burden of proof here.\\n II.\\n Quake also argues that the Board erred by refusing to\\nadmit expert testimony from the terminated district court\\nproceedings into the record. According to Quake, Dr. Ga-\\nbriel (Lo’s expert) made key admissions on the issue of\\nwhether there was adequate description of claim step D. 6\\n This court already characterized the district proceed-\\ning as a “nullity” and declined to consider evidence from it\\nin the previous appeal. Stanford, 860 F.3d at 1374–75. We\\ndid however leave it “up to the Board to decide whether it\\nwishes to reopen the record” on remand if it believed that\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Lo argues that we should reject this argument be-\\ncause Quake did not present it to the Board. Appellee’s Br.\\n54. But Quake raised the issue both in a conference call\\nwith the Board after this court’s remand and in its rehear-\\ning request. Interference No. 105,920, Order–New Briefing\\nand Evidence 37 C.F.R. § 41.104(a) (December 12, 2017);\\nJ.A. 7741–42. We do not find waiver of this issue.\\n\\f26 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n“new evidence may have been developed in the district pro-\\nceedings,” and specifically “express[ed] no opinion on\\nwhether it should do so.” Id. at 1375.\\n On remand, the Board considered and then decided not\\nto reopen the record. We review that Board decision re-\\ngarding management of its permissive rules governing\\ntrial proceedings for abuse of discretion. Redline Detection,\\nLLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 442 (Fed. Cir.\\n2015). Quake argues that this case is like Ultratec, where\\nwe found such abuse when (1) the proffered testimony was\\ninconsistent with the same witness’s testimony already in\\nthe record (both for substantive and credibility purposes);\\n(2) there was no reviewable transcript of a conference call\\nduring which the Board discussed the issue with the par-\\nties; and (3) the Board provided no written, reviewable rea-\\nsoning for why it did not allow the evidence into the record.\\nUltratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC, 872 F.3d 1267, 1272–\\n1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017). None of these issues are present\\nhere.\\n First, the testimony that Quake argues should have\\nbeen considered is not inconsistent to the extent it would\\nbear on the substance of Dr. Gabriel’s reasoning or her\\ncredibility. One excerpt reads:\\n Q. So the written description issue you have with\\n Step D of Claim 1 relates to the fact that the data\\n comes from Step C, not anything else in Step D,\\n right?\\n A. Step B and C.\\n Q. Step B and C, okay. But nothing else in Step D.\\n It’s not the comparison in Step D that’s the prob-\\n lem, right? Because that’s described throughout\\n the patent specification.\\n A. Yes.\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 27\\n\\n\\n\\nJ.A. 12835. This testimony is consistent with what Dr. Ga-\\nbriel and Lo have been arguing all along and what the\\nBoard found: the written description issue with step D re-\\nsults from the recitation of random MPS data in preceding\\nsteps B and C. “[N]othing else . . . in Step D [is] the prob-\\nlem” in that step D is adequately described for analyzing\\ndata resulting from methods such as digital PCR or tar-\\ngeted MPS and would be adequately described for analyz-\\ning data from random MPS, if obtaining data via random\\nMPS (Steps B and C) was expressly described in the speci-\\nfication.\\n Quake also points to Dr. Gabriel’s testimony that the\\ninventive part of the ’018 patent is using a mixed maternal\\nand fetal DNA sample to determine aneuploidy, while ad-\\nmitting that the “digital analysis techniques discussed in\\nthe ’018 patent” were known. J.A. 12838–39. Quake ar-\\ngues that this would explain “why a skilled artisan would\\nunderstand the invention is possessed by Quake even if un-\\nclaimed details of embodiments of the invention were not\\nexpressly spelled out for known sequencing methods.” Ap-\\npellants’ Op. Br. 53. As an initial matter, as Lo points out,\\nthis excerpted testimony refers expressly to using “digital\\nanalysis techniques” and “digital analytic methods” to con-\\nduct aneuploidy detection, which is digital PCR, not ran-\\ndom MPS. Appellees’ Br. 58–59. Further, this testimony\\nis not inconsistent; it is inapposite. An admission that\\nMPS was generally known does not address whether the\\n’018 specification describes using random MPS to deter-\\nmine fetal aneuploidy. Finally, whether the step D meth-\\nods were inventive or not is irrelevant to the issue here;\\nthey are still part of the claim and need to be adequately\\ndescribed to satisfy § 112.\\n Second, there is a transcript of the conference call be-\\ntween the Board and parties here, J.A. 7576–620, and the\\nBoard provided written reasoning for its decision. The\\nBoard issued an Order explaining in detail why it would\\nnot reopen the record, pointing out that (1) “[n]either party\\n\\f28 QUAKE v. LO\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nargued . . . that it lacked an opportunity to present evidence\\nduring the interference”; (2) Quake did not provide a “suf-\\nficient reason to give either party a second chance to pre-\\nsent evidence on the same issues that were originally\\nbefore the Board”; (3) “Quake did not provide a persuasive\\nreason why the arguments and evidence it made in opposi-\\ntion to Lo’s original motions were not complete during the\\ninterference”; and (4) “Quake did not explain how allowing\\nadditional evidence at this point in the proceeding will lead\\nto a more ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive’ resolution of the\\nproceeding.” J.A. 7574. Quake did not seek rehearing of\\nthe Board’s decision in the Order. J.A. 7741.\\n Third, the Board again wrote out its reasoning for why\\nit did not admit the testimony in denying Quake’s requests\\nfor rehearing of the final written decisions now on appeal.\\nJ.A.7740–42. In those requests, Quake asked the Board to\\nreopen the record to add a specific part of Dr. Gabriel’s dis-\\ntrict court testimony regarding Lo’s statistical analysis dis-\\nclosure and argued that it would be a denial of due process\\nnot to do so. The Board denied that request because it\\nfound the testimony irrelevant to Quake’s written descrip-\\ntion. J.A. 7741–42. The Board also found that “[b]ecause\\nQuake has failed to show why it did not have a full and fair\\nopportunity to present evidence and argument with its\\noriginal briefs, including from the cross-examination of Dr.\\nGabriel conducted during the interference, it is not clear\\nwhat due process was denied.” Id.\\n In sum, we find that the Board was within its discre-\\ntion to not reopen the record for the admission of the testi-\\nmony at issue.\\n CONCLUSION\\n Because the shared specification of Quake’s ’018 patent\\nand ’833 application does not disclose a method of using\\nrandom MPS to determine fetal aneuploidy, substantial ev-\\nidence supports the Board’s grant of Lo’s motions finding\\nthe four claims of the ’018 patent and claim 25 of the ’833\\n\\fQUAKE v. LO 29\\n\\n\\n\\napplication unpatentable for lack of written description un-\\nder § 112. We also find that the Board did not abuse its\\ndiscretion in not admitting Dr. Gabriel’s testimony from\\nthe district court proceedings. Accordingly, the Board’s\\nthree interference decisions are\\n AFFIRMED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3491,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4638040,"string":"4,638,040"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant v. TQ DELTA, LLC, Appellee ARRIS Group, INC., Appellant v. TQ Delta, LLC, Appellee"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Tq Delta, LLC"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-10"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"2018-1806; 2018-1917"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Newman, Linn, Wallach\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"WALLACH, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n TQ DELTA, LLC,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1806\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-\\n01466.\\n\\n ----------------------------------------------\\n\\n ARRIS GROUP, INC.,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n TQ DELTA, LLC,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1917\\n ______________________\\n\\f2 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-\\n01160.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 10, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n THEODORE M. FOSTER, Haynes & Boone, LLP, Dallas,\\nTX, argued for appellant Cisco Systems, Inc. Also repre-\\nsented by DAVID L. MCCOMBS, DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS.\\n\\n DAN GRESHAM, Thomas Horstemeyer LLP, Atlanta,\\nGA, argued for appellant ARRIS Group, Inc. Also repre-\\nsented by CHARLES GRIGGERS, WESLEY AUSTIN ROBERTS.\\n\\n RAJENDRA A. CHIPLUNKAR, McAndrews, Held & Malloy,\\nLtd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also represented by\\nPETER J. MCANDREWS.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before NEWMAN, LINN, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.\\nWALLACH, Circuit Judge.\\n The instant appeal is the companion to concurrently is-\\nsuing appeal No. 2018-1799, where we determined that\\nclaims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of Appellee TQ Delta, LLC’s (“TQ\\nDelta”) U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404 (“the ’404 patent”) are\\nunpatentable as obvious over the same combination of\\nprior art analyzed in this appeal. See TQ Delta, LLC v.\\nDish Network, LLC, No. 2018-1799, slip op. 19 (Fed. Cir.\\nJuly 10, 2019). We presume familiarity with our opinion\\nin related appeal, which recites the same technology and\\nillustrative claim as in the instant appeal, and we, there-\\nfore, recite only that which is necessary to understand the\\nissues on appeal here. See TQ Delta, slip op. 2–4,\\n\\fCISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC 3\\n\\n\\n\\n Appellant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) sought inter\\npartes review (“IPR”) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark\\nOffice (“USPTO”) of claims 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 20 of the\\n’404 patent. Appellant ARRIS Group, Inc. (“Arris”) also\\nfiled a petition for IPR of claims 1–20 of the ’404 patent. In\\nboth the Cisco and Arris (collectively, “Appellants”) IPRs,\\nthe USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) is-\\nsued final written decisions finding, inter alia, that the\\nclaims were not unpatentable over a combination of the\\nprior art. See Arris Grp., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, No.\\nIPR2016-01160, 2017 WL 6398317, at *7 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13,\\n2017); ARRIS Grp., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, No. IPR2016-\\n01160, 2018 WL 1176779, at *3 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2018)\\n(denying rehearing); see also Cisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta,\\nLLC., IPR No. 2016-01466 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2018) (J.A. 1–\\n16).\\n Appellants appeal. Because we have already deter-\\nmined that claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the ’404 patent would\\nhave been obvious, see TQ Delta, slip op. at 19, the issue of\\npatentability of these claims is mooted in this appeal, see\\nArcelorMittal v. AK Steel Corp., 856 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed.\\nCir. 2017) (“A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer\\na Case or Controversy for purposes of Article III—when the\\nissues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a le-\\ngally cognizable interest in the outcome.” (internal quota-\\ntion marks omitted) (citing Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568\\nU.S. 85, 91 (2013))). The remaining claims being chal-\\nlenged on appeal are the patentability of claims 1–5, 7–10,\\n12–15, and 17–19 (“the Challenged Claims”). We have ju-\\nrisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) (2012). We\\nvacate and remand.\\n BACKGROUND\\n Entitled “Multicarrier Transmission System with Low\\nPower Sleep Mode and Rapid-On Capability,” the ’404 pa-\\ntent relates to the field of “multicarrier transmission sys-\\ntems.” ’404 patent col. 1 l. 31. Relevant here, the exact\\n\\f4 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nterm “synchronization signal” appears only in the claims.\\nSee id. col. 10 l. 6–col. 12 l. 6. However, the specification\\ndescribes a “synchronizing pilot tone 62a,” id. col. 7 l. 15,\\nand refers to it as “a timing reference signal,” id. col. 5 ll.\\n38–39. The specification similarly describes using the\\n“timing reference signal” for “synchronization” as well as\\nother types of timing signals. See id. col. 5 ll. 39–45 (de-\\nscribing the “timing reference signal” being “synchronized\\nwith the Master Clock in the transmitter” and explaining\\nthat “[o]ther forms of timing signal[s] may, of course, be\\nused”).\\n Independent claim 6 1 is illustrative and recites in rele-\\nvant part:\\n An apparatus comprising a transceiver operable\\n to . . . receive, in the full power mode, a synchroni-\\n zation signal; . . . [and] receive, in the low power\\n mode, a synchronization signal; and exit from the\\n low power and restore the full power mode by using\\n the at least one parameter and without needing to\\n reinitialize the transceiver.\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 While Cisco and Arris challenge certain claims in\\nthe instant appeal that are not challenged in the related\\nappeal issued today, see TQ Delta, slip op. at 2, neither\\nparty disputes the PTAB’s selection of independent claim 6\\nas illustrative of the Challenged Claims, nor do they pre-\\nsent any argument why claims 1–5, 7–10, 12–15, and 17–\\n19 are separately patentable, see generally Cisco’s Br.; Ar-\\nris’s Br. Thus, we need not separately address those de-\\npendent claims. See Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v.\\nDIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2016)\\n(holding that when “[a party] has not separately argued the\\npatent eligibility of the dependent claims,” it “has waived\\nany argument that those claims should be analyzed sepa-\\nrately”).\\n\\fCISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC 5\\n\\n\\n\\nId. col. 10 ll. 29–43 (emphases added).\\n DISCUSSION\\n I. Standard of Review and Legal Standard\\n “We review the PTAB’s factual findings for substantial\\nevidence and its legal conclusions de novo.” Redline Detec-\\ntion, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 449 (Fed.\\nCir. 2015) (citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is\\nsomething less than the weight of the evidence but more\\nthan a mere scintilla of evidence,” meaning that “[i]t is such\\nrelevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as ad-\\nequate to support a conclusion.” In re NuVasive, Inc., 842\\nF.3d 1376, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation\\nmarks and citations omitted). “If two inconsistent conclu-\\nsions may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in rec-\\nord, the PTAB’s decision to favor one conclusion over the\\nother is the epitome of a decision that must be sustained\\nupon review for substantial evidence.” Elbit Sys. of Am.,\\nLLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir.\\n2018) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation\\nomitted).\\n At the time of the Final Written Decisions, the PTAB\\ngave “[a] claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in\\nlight of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”\\n37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017). A specification “includes both\\nthe written description and the claims” of the patent. In re\\nPackard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1320 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “A pa-\\ntent’s specification, together with its prosecution history,[2]\\nconstitutes intrinsic evidence to which the PTAB gives pri-\\nority when it construes claims.” Knowles Elecs. LLC v.\\n\\n\\n 2 A patent’s prosecution history “consists of the com-\\nplete record of the proceedings before the [US]PTO,” which\\nprovides “evidence of how the [US]PTO and the inventor\\nunderstood the patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d\\n1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted).\\n\\f6 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nCirrus Logic, Inc., 883 F.3d 1358, 1361−62 (Fed. Cir. 2018)\\n(citation omitted). We review the PTAB’s assessment of\\nthe intrinsic evidence de novo. See id. at 1362.\\nII. The PTAB Improperly Construed the “Synchronization\\n Signal” Limitation\\n The PTAB construed illustrative claim 6’s term “syn-\\nchronization signal” to mean “a signal allowing synchroni-\\nzation between the clock of the transmitter of the signal\\nand the clock of the receiver of the signal.” J.A. 10; Arris\\nGrp, 2017 WL 6398317, at *4. 3 The PTAB further clari-\\nfied, when rendering its obviousness determination, that\\n“[its] construction of ‘synchronization signal’ excludes a\\nsynchronization frame.” Arris Grp., 2017 WL 6398317, at\\n*6. Appellants assert that by improperly limiting the con-\\nstruction of “synchronization signal” to “a signal allowing\\nsynchronization between the clock of the transmitter of the\\nsignal and the clock of the receiver of the signal,” the PTAB\\ndid not apply “the broadest reasonable [interpretation] in\\nlight of the specification of the ’404 patent.” Cisco’s Br. 23;\\nArris’s Br. 31. 4 Cisco specifically asserts that\\n\\n\\n 3 Arris and Cisco raised similar claim construction\\nchallenges and the PTAB ultimately made identical or sub-\\nstantially similar determinations in both IPRs. See ARRIS\\nGrp., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, No. IPR2016-01160, 2018 WL\\n1176779, at *3 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2018) (denying rehearing);\\nCisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, IPR2016-01466 (P.T.A.B.\\nFeb. 7, 2018) (J.A. 1–16). Unless otherwise noted, we will\\ncite to the determination in ARRIS yet, our holdings apply\\nequally to ARRIS and Cisco.\\n 4 Appellants articulate substantially similar argu-\\nments as to the “synchronization signal” limitation on ap-\\npeal. See Arris’s Br. 26; Cisco’s Br. 23. As such, we address\\ntheir arguments together. We use “Appellants” to refer to\\narguments made by both parties and “Arris” or “Cisco” to\\nrefer to arguments made by that party alone.\\n\\fCISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC 7\\n\\n\\n\\n“synchronization signal” includes “a signal used to main-\\ntain timing between transceivers.” Cisco’s Br. 35. We\\nagree with Appellants.\\n The ’404 patent’s claims and specification teach that\\n“synchronization signal” means “a signal allowing frame\\nsynchronization between the transmitter of the signal and\\nthe receiver of the signal,” and is not limited to describing\\nwhat the signal must synchronize or to a particular type of\\nsynchronization. We begin our analysis with the claim lan-\\nguage. In re Power Integrations, Inc., 884 F.3d 1370, 1376\\n(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[C]laim construction must begin with the\\nwords of the claims themselves.” (citation omitted)). The\\nterm “synchronization signal” is recited twice in claim 6:\\nfirst, the transceiver “receive[s], in the full power mode, a\\nsynchronization signal,” ’404 patent col. 10 l. 33, and sec-\\nond, the transceiver “receive[s], in the low power mode, a\\nsynchronization signal,” id. col. 10 l. 39. We also look to\\nthe surrounding claim language for context when the illus-\\ntrative claim does not provide much clarification. See Phil-\\nlips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“Other claims of the patent in\\nquestion, both asserted and unasserted, can also be valua-\\nble sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim\\nterm.”). The “receiving a plurality of superframes” element\\nof the independent claim 1, however, only refers to the full\\npower mode. ’404 patent col. 10 ll. 2–4 (“An apparatus com-\\nprising a transceiver operable to: transmit, in full power\\nmode, a plurality of superframes. . . .”). Claim 6, therefore,\\nexplains that the transceiver operates in in full power\\nmode at least when transmitting the “plurality of super-\\nframes.”\\n The remainder of the specification does not expressly\\ndefine or even recite the term “synchronization signal.”\\nHowever it still provides useful insight for claim construc-\\ntion purposes. See generally ’404 patent; see Trs. of Colum-\\nbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir.\\n2016) (“[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the\\nclaim construction analysis and is, in fact, the single best\\n\\f8 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nguide to the meaning of a disputed term.” (internal quota-\\ntion marks and citation omitted)). 5 The ’404 patent’s writ-\\nten description explains that in its preferred embodiment,\\ntiming reference signal is the signal that allows “both” the\\nsynchronization of the respective transmitter and receiver\\nclocks, as well as the synchronization of the transmitter\\nand receiver frame counters. ’404 patent col. 5 ll. 37–45.\\nThe specification describes “[o]ther forms of timing signals”\\nthat may be used, as well as one embodiment as “advanta-\\ngeous[].” Id. col. 5 ll. 45, 42. As such, without any clear\\nindication otherwise in the specification, synchronization\\nis not restricted to the “advantageous” clock-based pre-\\nferred embodiment as described in the specification. See\\nLiebel-Flarsheim Co v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913\\n(Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that “it is improper to read lim-\\nitations from a preferred embodiment described in the\\nspecification—even if it is the only embodiment—into the\\nclaims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that\\nthe patentee intended the claims to be so limited”). Addi-\\ntionally, the ’404 patent’s “timing reference signal” pro-\\nvides the reference for both frequency and frame\\nsynchronization, and the presence of frame synchroniza-\\ntion requires frequency synchronization. See ’404 patent\\ncol. 5 ll. 37–41 (explaining that “[d]uring normal (non-sleep\\nmode) operation, a phase-lock loop (PLL) 62 receives . . . a\\n\\n\\n 5 The PTAB based its construction on the specifica-\\ntion’s reference to a “timing reference signal” in the “nor-\\nmal (non-sleep mode) operation,” as representative of the\\nclaimed “synchronization signal.” Arris Grp., 2017 WL\\n6398317, at *3–5; see ’404 patent col. 5 l. 37; see also\\nJ.A. 2350 (explaining, in Arris’s Petition for IPR, that\\n“[t]he timing reference signal is thus inferred to be repre-\\nsentative of th[e synchronization signal] claim limitation),\\n2548 (providing, in Patent Owner Response to Petition for\\nIPR, that “the claimed ‘synchronization signal’ relates to\\ntiming synchronization”).\\n\\fCISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC 9\\n\\n\\n\\ntiming reference signal 62a (see FIG. 1A) via a line 62b\\n[which] . . . is transmitted from the transmitter with which\\nthe receiver 16 communicates (e.g., the CO transmitter)”);\\nJ.A. 2834, 2866 (explaining, in Arris’s expert declaration,\\nthat “[t]he ’404 [p]atent teaches the transmission of a tim-\\ning signal to maintain synchronization between ADSL\\ntransceivers called the ‘timing reference frame, each frame\\nhaving a duration of one symbol period of approximately\\ntwo hundred and fifty microseconds’”). The specification\\nexplains that the timing reference signal “is advanta-\\ngeously a pure tone of fixed frequency and phase which is\\nsynchronized with the Master Clock in the transmitter; its\\nfrequency defines the frame rate of the transceivers.” ’404\\npatent col. 5 ll. 41–45. Contrary to the PTAB’s conclusion,\\nwe determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation\\nof the disputed claim term “synchronization signal” is\\nsimply “used to establish or maintain a timing relationship\\nbetween transceivers between the transmitter of the signal\\nand the receiver of the signal,” meaning synchronization\\nsignal includes frame synchronization.\\n TQ Delta’s primary counterargument is unpersuasive.\\nTQ Delta asserts that “Arris fails to show that the [PTAB]\\nerred in finding that ‘synchronization signal’ does not in-\\nclude a ‘synchronization frame.’” Appellee’s Br. 46. How-\\never, the timing reference signal described in the\\nspecification allows for both frequency and frame synchro-\\nnization. ’404 patent col. 5 ll. 48–53 (explaining that “[t]he\\nPLL 62 locks itself to [the timing reference] signal and\\ndrives clock 30 in synchronism with the Master Clock in\\nthe driving transmitter” and that this mechanism “also\\nsynchronizes frame counter 34 of the CPE transceiver to\\nthe corresponding frame counter of the CO transceiver”).\\nAs explained by the ’404 patent, the timing reference signal\\n“synchronizes frame counter 34 of the CPE transceiver to\\nthe corresponding frame counter of the CO transceiver.”\\nId. col. 5 ll. 50–52. Therefore, because the existence of the\\nframe synchronization requires frequency synchronization,\\n\\f10 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nthe “timing reference signal” demonstrates that the “syn-\\nchronization signal,” as disclosed by the Challenged\\nClaims, is necessary. See id. col. 5 ll. 41–45 (explaining\\nthat the transmitter’s “frequency defines the frame rate of\\nthe transceivers”). Thus, we vacate the PTAB’s claim con-\\nstruction and we remand for the PTAB to consider Appel-\\nlants’ unpatentability challenge under the proper claim\\nconstruction.\\n CONCLUSION\\n We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments\\nand find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Final Writ-\\nten Decisions of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board\\nare vacated and the case is remanded.\\n VACATED AND REMANDED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4415293/\", \"author_raw\": \"WALLACH, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"NEWMAN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"LINN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"WALLACH"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4638040/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant v. TQ DELTA, LLC, Appellee ARRIS Group, INC., Appellant v. TQ Delta, LLC, Appellee\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-10\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,\n Appellant\n\n v.\n\n TQ DELTA, LLC,\n Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2018-1806\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-\n01466.\n\n ----------------------------------------------\n\n ARRIS GROUP, INC.,\n Appellant\n\n v.\n\n TQ DELTA, LLC,\n Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2018-1917\n ______________________\n\f2 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC\n\n\n\n\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-\n01160.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: July 10, 2019\n ______________________\n\n THEODORE M. FOSTER, Haynes & Boone, LLP, Dallas,\nTX, argued for appellant Cisco Systems, Inc. Also repre-\nsented by DAVID L. MCCOMBS, DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS.\n\n DAN GRESHAM, Thomas Horstemeyer LLP, Atlanta,\nGA, argued for appellant ARRIS Group, Inc. Also repre-\nsented by CHARLES GRIGGERS, WESLEY AUSTIN ROBERTS.\n\n RAJENDRA A. CHIPLUNKAR, McAndrews, Held & Malloy,\nLtd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also represented by\nPETER J. MCANDREWS.\n ______________________\n\n Before NEWMAN, LINN, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.\nWALLACH, Circuit Judge.\n The instant appeal is the companion to concurrently is-\nsuing appeal No. 2018-1799, where we determined that\nclaims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of Appellee TQ Delta, LLC’s (“TQ\nDelta”) U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404 (“the ’404 patent”) are\nunpatentable as obvious over the same combination of\nprior art analyzed in this appeal. See TQ Delta, LLC v.\nDish Network, LLC, No. 2018-1799, slip op. 19 (Fed. Cir.\nJuly 10, 2019). We presume familiarity with our opinion\nin related appeal, which recites the same technology and\nillustrative claim as in the instant appeal, and we, there-\nfore, recite only that which is necessary to understand the\nissues on appeal here. See TQ Delta, slip op. 2–4,\n\fCISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC 3\n\n\n\n Appellant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) sought inter\npartes review (“IPR”) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark\nOffice (“USPTO”) of claims 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 20 of the\n’404 patent. Appellant ARRIS Group, Inc. (“Arris”) also\nfiled a petition for IPR of claims 1–20 of the ’404 patent. In\nboth the Cisco and Arris (collectively, “Appellants”) IPRs,\nthe USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) is-\nsued final written decisions finding, inter alia, that the\nclaims were not unpatentable over a combination of the\nprior art. See Arris Grp., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, No.\nIPR2016-01160, 2017 WL 6398317, at *7 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13,\n2017); ARRIS Grp., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, No. IPR2016-\n01160, 2018 WL 1176779, at *3 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2018)\n(denying rehearing); see also Cisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta,\nLLC., IPR No. 2016-01466 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2018) (J.A. 1–\n16).\n Appellants appeal. Because we have already deter-\nmined that claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the ’404 patent would\nhave been obvious, see TQ Delta, slip op. at 19, the issue of\npatentability of these claims is mooted in this appeal, see\nArcelorMittal v. AK Steel Corp., 856 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed.\nCir. 2017) (“A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer\na Case or Controversy for purposes of Article III—when the\nissues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a le-\ngally cognizable interest in the outcome.” (internal quota-\ntion marks omitted) (citing Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568\nU.S. 85, 91 (2013))). The remaining claims being chal-\nlenged on appeal are the patentability of claims 1–5, 7–10,\n12–15, and 17–19 (“the Challenged Claims”). We have ju-\nrisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) (2012). We\nvacate and remand.\n BACKGROUND\n Entitled “Multicarrier Transmission System with Low\nPower Sleep Mode and Rapid-On Capability,” the ’404 pa-\ntent relates to the field of “multicarrier transmission sys-\ntems.” ’404 patent col. 1 l. 31. Relevant here, the exact\n\f4 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC\n\n\n\n\nterm “synchronization signal” appears only in the claims.\nSee id. col. 10 l. 6–col. 12 l. 6. However, the specification\ndescribes a “synchronizing pilot tone 62a,” id. col. 7 l. 15,\nand refers to it as “a timing reference signal,” id. col. 5 ll.\n38–39. The specification similarly describes using the\n“timing reference signal” for “synchronization” as well as\nother types of timing signals. See id. col. 5 ll. 39–45 (de-\nscribing the “timing reference signal” being “synchronized\nwith the Master Clock in the transmitter” and explaining\nthat “[o]ther forms of timing signal[s] may, of course, be\nused”).\n Independent claim 6 1 is illustrative and recites in rele-\nvant part:\n An apparatus comprising a transceiver operable\n to . . . receive, in the full power mode, a synchroni-\n zation signal; . . . [and] receive, in the low power\n mode, a synchronization signal; and exit from the\n low power and restore the full power mode by using\n the at least one parameter and without needing to\n reinitialize the transceiver.\n\n\n\n 1 While Cisco and Arris challenge certain claims in\nthe instant appeal that are not challenged in the related\nappeal issued today, see TQ Delta, slip op. at 2, neither\nparty disputes the PTAB’s selection of independent claim 6\nas illustrative of the Challenged Claims, nor do they pre-\nsent any argument why claims 1–5, 7–10, 12–15, and 17–\n19 are separately patentable, see generally Cisco’s Br.; Ar-\nris’s Br. Thus, we need not separately address those de-\npendent claims. See Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v.\nDIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2016)\n(holding that when “[a party] has not separately argued the\npatent eligibility of the dependent claims,” it “has waived\nany argument that those claims should be analyzed sepa-\nrately”).\n\fCISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC 5\n\n\n\nId. col. 10 ll. 29–43 (emphases added).\n DISCUSSION\n I. Standard of Review and Legal Standard\n “We review the PTAB’s factual findings for substantial\nevidence and its legal conclusions de novo.” Redline Detec-\ntion, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 449 (Fed.\nCir. 2015) (citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is\nsomething less than the weight of the evidence but more\nthan a mere scintilla of evidence,” meaning that “[i]t is such\nrelevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as ad-\nequate to support a conclusion.” In re NuVasive, Inc., 842\nF.3d 1376, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation\nmarks and citations omitted). “If two inconsistent conclu-\nsions may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in rec-\nord, the PTAB’s decision to favor one conclusion over the\nother is the epitome of a decision that must be sustained\nupon review for substantial evidence.” Elbit Sys. of Am.,\nLLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir.\n2018) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation\nomitted).\n At the time of the Final Written Decisions, the PTAB\ngave “[a] claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in\nlight of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”\n37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017). A specification “includes both\nthe written description and the claims” of the patent. In re\nPackard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1320 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “A pa-\ntent’s specification, together with its prosecution history,[2]\nconstitutes intrinsic evidence to which the PTAB gives pri-\nority when it construes claims.” Knowles Elecs. LLC v.\n\n\n 2 A patent’s prosecution history “consists of the com-\nplete record of the proceedings before the [US]PTO,” which\nprovides “evidence of how the [US]PTO and the inventor\nunderstood the patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d\n1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted).\n\f6 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC\n\n\n\n\nCirrus Logic, Inc., 883 F.3d 1358, 1361−62 (Fed. Cir. 2018)\n(citation omitted). We review the PTAB’s assessment of\nthe intrinsic evidence de novo. See id. at 1362.\nII. The PTAB Improperly Construed the “Synchronization\n Signal” Limitation\n The PTAB construed illustrative claim 6’s term “syn-\nchronization signal” to mean “a signal allowing synchroni-\nzation between the clock of the transmitter of the signal\nand the clock of the receiver of the signal.” J.A. 10; Arris\nGrp, 2017 WL 6398317, at *4. 3 The PTAB further clari-\nfied, when rendering its obviousness determination, that\n“[its] construction of ‘synchronization signal’ excludes a\nsynchronization frame.” Arris Grp., 2017 WL 6398317, at\n*6. Appellants assert that by improperly limiting the con-\nstruction of “synchronization signal” to “a signal allowing\nsynchronization between the clock of the transmitter of the\nsignal and the clock of the receiver of the signal,” the PTAB\ndid not apply “the broadest reasonable [interpretation] in\nlight of the specification of the ’404 patent.” Cisco’s Br. 23;\nArris’s Br. 31. 4 Cisco specifically asserts that\n\n\n 3 Arris and Cisco raised similar claim construction\nchallenges and the PTAB ultimately made identical or sub-\nstantially similar determinations in both IPRs. See ARRIS\nGrp., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, No. IPR2016-01160, 2018 WL\n1176779, at *3 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2018) (denying rehearing);\nCisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, IPR2016-01466 (P.T.A.B.\nFeb. 7, 2018) (J.A. 1–16). Unless otherwise noted, we will\ncite to the determination in ARRIS yet, our holdings apply\nequally to ARRIS and Cisco.\n 4 Appellants articulate substantially similar argu-\nments as to the “synchronization signal” limitation on ap-\npeal. See Arris’s Br. 26; Cisco’s Br. 23. As such, we address\ntheir arguments together. We use “Appellants” to refer to\narguments made by both parties and “Arris” or “Cisco” to\nrefer to arguments made by that party alone.\n\fCISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC 7\n\n\n\n“synchronization signal” includes “a signal used to main-\ntain timing between transceivers.” Cisco’s Br. 35. We\nagree with Appellants.\n The ’404 patent’s claims and specification teach that\n“synchronization signal” means “a signal allowing frame\nsynchronization between the transmitter of the signal and\nthe receiver of the signal,” and is not limited to describing\nwhat the signal must synchronize or to a particular type of\nsynchronization. We begin our analysis with the claim lan-\nguage. In re Power Integrations, Inc., 884 F.3d 1370, 1376\n(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[C]laim construction must begin with the\nwords of the claims themselves.” (citation omitted)). The\nterm “synchronization signal” is recited twice in claim 6:\nfirst, the transceiver “receive[s], in the full power mode, a\nsynchronization signal,” ’404 patent col. 10 l. 33, and sec-\nond, the transceiver “receive[s], in the low power mode, a\nsynchronization signal,” id. col. 10 l. 39. We also look to\nthe surrounding claim language for context when the illus-\ntrative claim does not provide much clarification. See Phil-\nlips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“Other claims of the patent in\nquestion, both asserted and unasserted, can also be valua-\nble sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim\nterm.”). The “receiving a plurality of superframes” element\nof the independent claim 1, however, only refers to the full\npower mode. ’404 patent col. 10 ll. 2–4 (“An apparatus com-\nprising a transceiver operable to: transmit, in full power\nmode, a plurality of superframes. . . .”). Claim 6, therefore,\nexplains that the transceiver operates in in full power\nmode at least when transmitting the “plurality of super-\nframes.”\n The remainder of the specification does not expressly\ndefine or even recite the term “synchronization signal.”\nHowever it still provides useful insight for claim construc-\ntion purposes. See generally ’404 patent; see Trs. of Colum-\nbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir.\n2016) (“[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the\nclaim construction analysis and is, in fact, the single best\n\f8 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC\n\n\n\n\nguide to the meaning of a disputed term.” (internal quota-\ntion marks and citation omitted)). 5 The ’404 patent’s writ-\nten description explains that in its preferred embodiment,\ntiming reference signal is the signal that allows “both” the\nsynchronization of the respective transmitter and receiver\nclocks, as well as the synchronization of the transmitter\nand receiver frame counters. ’404 patent col. 5 ll. 37–45.\nThe specification describes “[o]ther forms of timing signals”\nthat may be used, as well as one embodiment as “advanta-\ngeous[].” Id. col. 5 ll. 45, 42. As such, without any clear\nindication otherwise in the specification, synchronization\nis not restricted to the “advantageous” clock-based pre-\nferred embodiment as described in the specification. See\nLiebel-Flarsheim Co v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913\n(Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that “it is improper to read lim-\nitations from a preferred embodiment described in the\nspecification—even if it is the only embodiment—into the\nclaims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that\nthe patentee intended the claims to be so limited”). Addi-\ntionally, the ’404 patent’s “timing reference signal” pro-\nvides the reference for both frequency and frame\nsynchronization, and the presence of frame synchroniza-\ntion requires frequency synchronization. See ’404 patent\ncol. 5 ll. 37–41 (explaining that “[d]uring normal (non-sleep\nmode) operation, a phase-lock loop (PLL) 62 receives . . . a\n\n\n 5 The PTAB based its construction on the specifica-\ntion’s reference to a “timing reference signal” in the “nor-\nmal (non-sleep mode) operation,” as representative of the\nclaimed “synchronization signal.” Arris Grp., 2017 WL\n6398317, at *3–5; see ’404 patent col. 5 l. 37; see also\nJ.A. 2350 (explaining, in Arris’s Petition for IPR, that\n“[t]he timing reference signal is thus inferred to be repre-\nsentative of th[e synchronization signal] claim limitation),\n2548 (providing, in Patent Owner Response to Petition for\nIPR, that “the claimed ‘synchronization signal’ relates to\ntiming synchronization”).\n\fCISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC 9\n\n\n\ntiming reference signal 62a (see FIG. 1A) via a line 62b\n[which] . . . is transmitted from the transmitter with which\nthe receiver 16 communicates (e.g., the CO transmitter)”);\nJ.A. 2834, 2866 (explaining, in Arris’s expert declaration,\nthat “[t]he ’404 [p]atent teaches the transmission of a tim-\ning signal to maintain synchronization between ADSL\ntransceivers called the ‘timing reference frame, each frame\nhaving a duration of one symbol period of approximately\ntwo hundred and fifty microseconds’”). The specification\nexplains that the timing reference signal “is advanta-\ngeously a pure tone of fixed frequency and phase which is\nsynchronized with the Master Clock in the transmitter; its\nfrequency defines the frame rate of the transceivers.” ’404\npatent col. 5 ll. 41–45. Contrary to the PTAB’s conclusion,\nwe determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation\nof the disputed claim term “synchronization signal” is\nsimply “used to establish or maintain a timing relationship\nbetween transceivers between the transmitter of the signal\nand the receiver of the signal,” meaning synchronization\nsignal includes frame synchronization.\n TQ Delta’s primary counterargument is unpersuasive.\nTQ Delta asserts that “Arris fails to show that the [PTAB]\nerred in finding that ‘synchronization signal’ does not in-\nclude a ‘synchronization frame.’” Appellee’s Br. 46. How-\never, the timing reference signal described in the\nspecification allows for both frequency and frame synchro-\nnization. ’404 patent col. 5 ll. 48–53 (explaining that “[t]he\nPLL 62 locks itself to [the timing reference] signal and\ndrives clock 30 in synchronism with the Master Clock in\nthe driving transmitter” and that this mechanism “also\nsynchronizes frame counter 34 of the CPE transceiver to\nthe corresponding frame counter of the CO transceiver”).\nAs explained by the ’404 patent, the timing reference signal\n“synchronizes frame counter 34 of the CPE transceiver to\nthe corresponding frame counter of the CO transceiver.”\nId. col. 5 ll. 50–52. Therefore, because the existence of the\nframe synchronization requires frequency synchronization,\n\f10 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC\n\n\n\n\nthe “timing reference signal” demonstrates that the “syn-\nchronization signal,” as disclosed by the Challenged\nClaims, is necessary. See id. col. 5 ll. 41–45 (explaining\nthat the transmitter’s “frequency defines the frame rate of\nthe transceivers”). Thus, we vacate the PTAB’s claim con-\nstruction and we remand for the PTAB to consider Appel-\nlants’ unpatentability challenge under the proper claim\nconstruction.\n CONCLUSION\n We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments\nand find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Final Writ-\nten Decisions of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board\nare vacated and the case is remanded.\n VACATED AND REMANDED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant v. TQ DELTA, LLC, Appellee ARRIS Group, INC., Appellant v. TQ Delta, LLC, Appellee\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-10\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n TQ DELTA, LLC,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1806\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-\\n01466.\\n\\n ----------------------------------------------\\n\\n ARRIS GROUP, INC.,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n TQ DELTA, LLC,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1917\\n ______________________\\n\\f2 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-\\n01160.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 10, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n THEODORE M. FOSTER, Haynes & Boone, LLP, Dallas,\\nTX, argued for appellant Cisco Systems, Inc. Also repre-\\nsented by DAVID L. MCCOMBS, DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS.\\n\\n DAN GRESHAM, Thomas Horstemeyer LLP, Atlanta,\\nGA, argued for appellant ARRIS Group, Inc. Also repre-\\nsented by CHARLES GRIGGERS, WESLEY AUSTIN ROBERTS.\\n\\n RAJENDRA A. CHIPLUNKAR, McAndrews, Held & Malloy,\\nLtd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also represented by\\nPETER J. MCANDREWS.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before NEWMAN, LINN, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.\\nWALLACH, Circuit Judge.\\n The instant appeal is the companion to concurrently is-\\nsuing appeal No. 2018-1799, where we determined that\\nclaims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of Appellee TQ Delta, LLC’s (“TQ\\nDelta”) U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404 (“the ’404 patent”) are\\nunpatentable as obvious over the same combination of\\nprior art analyzed in this appeal. See TQ Delta, LLC v.\\nDish Network, LLC, No. 2018-1799, slip op. 19 (Fed. Cir.\\nJuly 10, 2019). We presume familiarity with our opinion\\nin related appeal, which recites the same technology and\\nillustrative claim as in the instant appeal, and we, there-\\nfore, recite only that which is necessary to understand the\\nissues on appeal here. See TQ Delta, slip op. 2–4,\\n\\fCISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC 3\\n\\n\\n\\n Appellant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) sought inter\\npartes review (“IPR”) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark\\nOffice (“USPTO”) of claims 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 20 of the\\n’404 patent. Appellant ARRIS Group, Inc. (“Arris”) also\\nfiled a petition for IPR of claims 1–20 of the ’404 patent. In\\nboth the Cisco and Arris (collectively, “Appellants”) IPRs,\\nthe USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) is-\\nsued final written decisions finding, inter alia, that the\\nclaims were not unpatentable over a combination of the\\nprior art. See Arris Grp., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, No.\\nIPR2016-01160, 2017 WL 6398317, at *7 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13,\\n2017); ARRIS Grp., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, No. IPR2016-\\n01160, 2018 WL 1176779, at *3 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2018)\\n(denying rehearing); see also Cisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta,\\nLLC., IPR No. 2016-01466 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2018) (J.A. 1–\\n16).\\n Appellants appeal. Because we have already deter-\\nmined that claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the ’404 patent would\\nhave been obvious, see TQ Delta, slip op. at 19, the issue of\\npatentability of these claims is mooted in this appeal, see\\nArcelorMittal v. AK Steel Corp., 856 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed.\\nCir. 2017) (“A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer\\na Case or Controversy for purposes of Article III—when the\\nissues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a le-\\ngally cognizable interest in the outcome.” (internal quota-\\ntion marks omitted) (citing Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568\\nU.S. 85, 91 (2013))). The remaining claims being chal-\\nlenged on appeal are the patentability of claims 1–5, 7–10,\\n12–15, and 17–19 (“the Challenged Claims”). We have ju-\\nrisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) (2012). We\\nvacate and remand.\\n BACKGROUND\\n Entitled “Multicarrier Transmission System with Low\\nPower Sleep Mode and Rapid-On Capability,” the ’404 pa-\\ntent relates to the field of “multicarrier transmission sys-\\ntems.” ’404 patent col. 1 l. 31. Relevant here, the exact\\n\\f4 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nterm “synchronization signal” appears only in the claims.\\nSee id. col. 10 l. 6–col. 12 l. 6. However, the specification\\ndescribes a “synchronizing pilot tone 62a,” id. col. 7 l. 15,\\nand refers to it as “a timing reference signal,” id. col. 5 ll.\\n38–39. The specification similarly describes using the\\n“timing reference signal” for “synchronization” as well as\\nother types of timing signals. See id. col. 5 ll. 39–45 (de-\\nscribing the “timing reference signal” being “synchronized\\nwith the Master Clock in the transmitter” and explaining\\nthat “[o]ther forms of timing signal[s] may, of course, be\\nused”).\\n Independent claim 6 1 is illustrative and recites in rele-\\nvant part:\\n An apparatus comprising a transceiver operable\\n to . . . receive, in the full power mode, a synchroni-\\n zation signal; . . . [and] receive, in the low power\\n mode, a synchronization signal; and exit from the\\n low power and restore the full power mode by using\\n the at least one parameter and without needing to\\n reinitialize the transceiver.\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 While Cisco and Arris challenge certain claims in\\nthe instant appeal that are not challenged in the related\\nappeal issued today, see TQ Delta, slip op. at 2, neither\\nparty disputes the PTAB’s selection of independent claim 6\\nas illustrative of the Challenged Claims, nor do they pre-\\nsent any argument why claims 1–5, 7–10, 12–15, and 17–\\n19 are separately patentable, see generally Cisco’s Br.; Ar-\\nris’s Br. Thus, we need not separately address those de-\\npendent claims. See Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v.\\nDIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2016)\\n(holding that when “[a party] has not separately argued the\\npatent eligibility of the dependent claims,” it “has waived\\nany argument that those claims should be analyzed sepa-\\nrately”).\\n\\fCISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC 5\\n\\n\\n\\nId. col. 10 ll. 29–43 (emphases added).\\n DISCUSSION\\n I. Standard of Review and Legal Standard\\n “We review the PTAB’s factual findings for substantial\\nevidence and its legal conclusions de novo.” Redline Detec-\\ntion, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 449 (Fed.\\nCir. 2015) (citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is\\nsomething less than the weight of the evidence but more\\nthan a mere scintilla of evidence,” meaning that “[i]t is such\\nrelevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as ad-\\nequate to support a conclusion.” In re NuVasive, Inc., 842\\nF.3d 1376, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation\\nmarks and citations omitted). “If two inconsistent conclu-\\nsions may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in rec-\\nord, the PTAB’s decision to favor one conclusion over the\\nother is the epitome of a decision that must be sustained\\nupon review for substantial evidence.” Elbit Sys. of Am.,\\nLLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir.\\n2018) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation\\nomitted).\\n At the time of the Final Written Decisions, the PTAB\\ngave “[a] claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in\\nlight of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”\\n37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017). A specification “includes both\\nthe written description and the claims” of the patent. In re\\nPackard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1320 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “A pa-\\ntent’s specification, together with its prosecution history,[2]\\nconstitutes intrinsic evidence to which the PTAB gives pri-\\nority when it construes claims.” Knowles Elecs. LLC v.\\n\\n\\n 2 A patent’s prosecution history “consists of the com-\\nplete record of the proceedings before the [US]PTO,” which\\nprovides “evidence of how the [US]PTO and the inventor\\nunderstood the patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d\\n1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted).\\n\\f6 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nCirrus Logic, Inc., 883 F.3d 1358, 1361−62 (Fed. Cir. 2018)\\n(citation omitted). We review the PTAB’s assessment of\\nthe intrinsic evidence de novo. See id. at 1362.\\nII. The PTAB Improperly Construed the “Synchronization\\n Signal” Limitation\\n The PTAB construed illustrative claim 6’s term “syn-\\nchronization signal” to mean “a signal allowing synchroni-\\nzation between the clock of the transmitter of the signal\\nand the clock of the receiver of the signal.” J.A. 10; Arris\\nGrp, 2017 WL 6398317, at *4. 3 The PTAB further clari-\\nfied, when rendering its obviousness determination, that\\n“[its] construction of ‘synchronization signal’ excludes a\\nsynchronization frame.” Arris Grp., 2017 WL 6398317, at\\n*6. Appellants assert that by improperly limiting the con-\\nstruction of “synchronization signal” to “a signal allowing\\nsynchronization between the clock of the transmitter of the\\nsignal and the clock of the receiver of the signal,” the PTAB\\ndid not apply “the broadest reasonable [interpretation] in\\nlight of the specification of the ’404 patent.” Cisco’s Br. 23;\\nArris’s Br. 31. 4 Cisco specifically asserts that\\n\\n\\n 3 Arris and Cisco raised similar claim construction\\nchallenges and the PTAB ultimately made identical or sub-\\nstantially similar determinations in both IPRs. See ARRIS\\nGrp., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, No. IPR2016-01160, 2018 WL\\n1176779, at *3 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2018) (denying rehearing);\\nCisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, IPR2016-01466 (P.T.A.B.\\nFeb. 7, 2018) (J.A. 1–16). Unless otherwise noted, we will\\ncite to the determination in ARRIS yet, our holdings apply\\nequally to ARRIS and Cisco.\\n 4 Appellants articulate substantially similar argu-\\nments as to the “synchronization signal” limitation on ap-\\npeal. See Arris’s Br. 26; Cisco’s Br. 23. As such, we address\\ntheir arguments together. We use “Appellants” to refer to\\narguments made by both parties and “Arris” or “Cisco” to\\nrefer to arguments made by that party alone.\\n\\fCISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC 7\\n\\n\\n\\n“synchronization signal” includes “a signal used to main-\\ntain timing between transceivers.” Cisco’s Br. 35. We\\nagree with Appellants.\\n The ’404 patent’s claims and specification teach that\\n“synchronization signal” means “a signal allowing frame\\nsynchronization between the transmitter of the signal and\\nthe receiver of the signal,” and is not limited to describing\\nwhat the signal must synchronize or to a particular type of\\nsynchronization. We begin our analysis with the claim lan-\\nguage. In re Power Integrations, Inc., 884 F.3d 1370, 1376\\n(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[C]laim construction must begin with the\\nwords of the claims themselves.” (citation omitted)). The\\nterm “synchronization signal” is recited twice in claim 6:\\nfirst, the transceiver “receive[s], in the full power mode, a\\nsynchronization signal,” ’404 patent col. 10 l. 33, and sec-\\nond, the transceiver “receive[s], in the low power mode, a\\nsynchronization signal,” id. col. 10 l. 39. We also look to\\nthe surrounding claim language for context when the illus-\\ntrative claim does not provide much clarification. See Phil-\\nlips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“Other claims of the patent in\\nquestion, both asserted and unasserted, can also be valua-\\nble sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim\\nterm.”). The “receiving a plurality of superframes” element\\nof the independent claim 1, however, only refers to the full\\npower mode. ’404 patent col. 10 ll. 2–4 (“An apparatus com-\\nprising a transceiver operable to: transmit, in full power\\nmode, a plurality of superframes. . . .”). Claim 6, therefore,\\nexplains that the transceiver operates in in full power\\nmode at least when transmitting the “plurality of super-\\nframes.”\\n The remainder of the specification does not expressly\\ndefine or even recite the term “synchronization signal.”\\nHowever it still provides useful insight for claim construc-\\ntion purposes. See generally ’404 patent; see Trs. of Colum-\\nbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir.\\n2016) (“[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the\\nclaim construction analysis and is, in fact, the single best\\n\\f8 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nguide to the meaning of a disputed term.” (internal quota-\\ntion marks and citation omitted)). 5 The ’404 patent’s writ-\\nten description explains that in its preferred embodiment,\\ntiming reference signal is the signal that allows “both” the\\nsynchronization of the respective transmitter and receiver\\nclocks, as well as the synchronization of the transmitter\\nand receiver frame counters. ’404 patent col. 5 ll. 37–45.\\nThe specification describes “[o]ther forms of timing signals”\\nthat may be used, as well as one embodiment as “advanta-\\ngeous[].” Id. col. 5 ll. 45, 42. As such, without any clear\\nindication otherwise in the specification, synchronization\\nis not restricted to the “advantageous” clock-based pre-\\nferred embodiment as described in the specification. See\\nLiebel-Flarsheim Co v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913\\n(Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that “it is improper to read lim-\\nitations from a preferred embodiment described in the\\nspecification—even if it is the only embodiment—into the\\nclaims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that\\nthe patentee intended the claims to be so limited”). Addi-\\ntionally, the ’404 patent’s “timing reference signal” pro-\\nvides the reference for both frequency and frame\\nsynchronization, and the presence of frame synchroniza-\\ntion requires frequency synchronization. See ’404 patent\\ncol. 5 ll. 37–41 (explaining that “[d]uring normal (non-sleep\\nmode) operation, a phase-lock loop (PLL) 62 receives . . . a\\n\\n\\n 5 The PTAB based its construction on the specifica-\\ntion’s reference to a “timing reference signal” in the “nor-\\nmal (non-sleep mode) operation,” as representative of the\\nclaimed “synchronization signal.” Arris Grp., 2017 WL\\n6398317, at *3–5; see ’404 patent col. 5 l. 37; see also\\nJ.A. 2350 (explaining, in Arris’s Petition for IPR, that\\n“[t]he timing reference signal is thus inferred to be repre-\\nsentative of th[e synchronization signal] claim limitation),\\n2548 (providing, in Patent Owner Response to Petition for\\nIPR, that “the claimed ‘synchronization signal’ relates to\\ntiming synchronization”).\\n\\fCISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC 9\\n\\n\\n\\ntiming reference signal 62a (see FIG. 1A) via a line 62b\\n[which] . . . is transmitted from the transmitter with which\\nthe receiver 16 communicates (e.g., the CO transmitter)”);\\nJ.A. 2834, 2866 (explaining, in Arris’s expert declaration,\\nthat “[t]he ’404 [p]atent teaches the transmission of a tim-\\ning signal to maintain synchronization between ADSL\\ntransceivers called the ‘timing reference frame, each frame\\nhaving a duration of one symbol period of approximately\\ntwo hundred and fifty microseconds’”). The specification\\nexplains that the timing reference signal “is advanta-\\ngeously a pure tone of fixed frequency and phase which is\\nsynchronized with the Master Clock in the transmitter; its\\nfrequency defines the frame rate of the transceivers.” ’404\\npatent col. 5 ll. 41–45. Contrary to the PTAB’s conclusion,\\nwe determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation\\nof the disputed claim term “synchronization signal” is\\nsimply “used to establish or maintain a timing relationship\\nbetween transceivers between the transmitter of the signal\\nand the receiver of the signal,” meaning synchronization\\nsignal includes frame synchronization.\\n TQ Delta’s primary counterargument is unpersuasive.\\nTQ Delta asserts that “Arris fails to show that the [PTAB]\\nerred in finding that ‘synchronization signal’ does not in-\\nclude a ‘synchronization frame.’” Appellee’s Br. 46. How-\\never, the timing reference signal described in the\\nspecification allows for both frequency and frame synchro-\\nnization. ’404 patent col. 5 ll. 48–53 (explaining that “[t]he\\nPLL 62 locks itself to [the timing reference] signal and\\ndrives clock 30 in synchronism with the Master Clock in\\nthe driving transmitter” and that this mechanism “also\\nsynchronizes frame counter 34 of the CPE transceiver to\\nthe corresponding frame counter of the CO transceiver”).\\nAs explained by the ’404 patent, the timing reference signal\\n“synchronizes frame counter 34 of the CPE transceiver to\\nthe corresponding frame counter of the CO transceiver.”\\nId. col. 5 ll. 50–52. Therefore, because the existence of the\\nframe synchronization requires frequency synchronization,\\n\\f10 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. TQ DELTA, LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nthe “timing reference signal” demonstrates that the “syn-\\nchronization signal,” as disclosed by the Challenged\\nClaims, is necessary. See id. col. 5 ll. 41–45 (explaining\\nthat the transmitter’s “frequency defines the frame rate of\\nthe transceivers”). Thus, we vacate the PTAB’s claim con-\\nstruction and we remand for the PTAB to consider Appel-\\nlants’ unpatentability challenge under the proper claim\\nconstruction.\\n CONCLUSION\\n We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments\\nand find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Final Writ-\\nten Decisions of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board\\nare vacated and the case is remanded.\\n VACATED AND REMANDED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3492,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4641907,"string":"4,641,907"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Automotive Body Parts Ass'n v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-11"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"2018-1613"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Hughes, Schall, Stoll\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"STOLL, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS ASSOCIATION,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,\\n Defendant-Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1613\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nEastern District of Michigan in No. 2:15-cv-10137-LJM-\\nRSW, Judge Laurie J. Michelson.\\n ______________________\\n\\n SEALED OPINION ISSUED: July 11, 2019\\n PUBLIC OPINION ISSUED: July 23, 2019 *\\n ______________________\\n\\n ROBERT GLENN OAKE, JR., Oake Law Office, Allen, TX,\\nargued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by PAUL\\nKITTINGER, Cardelli Lanfear PC, Royal Oak, MI.\\n\\n JESSICA LYNN ELLSWORTH, Hogan Lovells US LLP,\\nWashington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also rep-\\nresented by KATHERINE BOOTH WELLINGTON; FRANK A.\\n\\n\\n * This opinion was originally filed under seal and has\\nbeen unsealed in full.\\n\\f2 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nANGILERI, MARC LORELLI, Brooks Kushman PC, Southfield,\\nMI.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before HUGHES, SCHALL, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\\nSTOLL, Circuit Judge.\\n This case involves both differences and similarities be-\\ntween design patents and utility patents. A design patent\\nprotects a “new, original and ornamental design for an ar-\\nticle of manufacture.” 35 U.S.C. § 171(a). While estab-\\nlished law bars design patents on primarily functional\\ndesigns for lack of ornamentality, utility patents must be\\nfunctional to be patentable. In many other ways though,\\ndesign and utility patents are similar. Section 171(b) of\\nTitle 35 demands as much, directing that the requirements\\nthat apply to “patents for inventions shall apply to patents\\nfor designs” unless otherwise provided.\\n Here, we decide what types of functionality invalidate\\na design patent and determine whether long-standing\\nrules of patent exhaustion and repair rights applicable to\\nutility patents also apply to design patents. Automotive\\nBody Parts Association (ABPA) asks us to hold that the\\naesthetic appeal—rather than any mechanical or utilitar-\\nian aspect—of a patented design may render it functional.\\nAnd it asks us to expand the doctrines of exhaustion and\\nrepair to recognize the “unique nature” of design patents.\\nBoth theories invite us to rewrite established law to permit\\nABPA to evade Ford Global Technologies, LLC’s patent\\nrights. We decline ABPA’s invitation and affirm the dis-\\ntrict court’s summary judgment.\\n BACKGROUND\\n I\\n Ford’s U.S. Patent No. D489,299 and U.S. Patent\\nNo. D501,685 protect designs used in certain models of\\nFord’s F-150 trucks. The D’299 patent, titled “Exterior of\\n\\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 3\\n\\n\\n\\nVehicle Hood,” claims “[t]he ornamental design for exterior\\nof vehicle hood.” Figure 1, below, illustrates the hood.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe D’685 patent, titled “Vehicle Head Lamp,” claims\\n“[t]he ornamental design for a vehicle head lamp,” as\\nshown in Figures 1 and 2, reproduced below.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe inventors of these designs are artists holding Bachelor\\nof Fine Arts degrees from the College for Creative Studies.\\nIn a declaration, one inventor explained that the inventors\\nhad “full control and responsibility for the exterior appear-\\nance of the . . . Ford F-150 truck,” that “the design team\\ncreated and selected part designs based on aesthetic ap-\\npearance,” and that although engineers reviewed the final\\ndesigns, “[t]here were no changes to the aesthetic\\n\\f4 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ndesigns of the[] parts based on engineering or functional\\nrequirements.” J.A. 2538–39.\\n II\\n ABPA, an association of companies that distribute au-\\ntomotive body parts, clashed with Ford at the International\\nTrade Commission when Ford accused a number of ABPA\\nmembers of infringing the D’299 and D’685 patents, among\\nothers. The ITC actions eventually settled, but only after\\nthe administrative law judge ruled that “respondents’ [in-\\nvalidity] defense that the asserted patents do not comply\\nwith the ornamentality requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 171 has\\nno basis in the law,” J.A. 256, and that “there is no legal\\nbasis for respondents’ assertion of [unenforceability based\\non] either the patent exhaustion or permissible repair doc-\\ntrines,” J.A. 242.\\n Undeterred, ABPA sued Ford in district court, seeking\\na declaratory judgment of invalidity or unenforceability of\\nthe D’299 and D’685 patents. ABPA eventually moved for\\nsummary judgment. The district court considered ABPA’s\\narguments and denied the motion, noting that ABPA “ef-\\nfectively ask[ed] this Court to eliminate design patents on\\nauto-body parts.” Auto. Body Parts Ass’n v. Ford Glob.\\nTechs., LLC, 293 F. Supp. 3d 690, 694 (E.D. Mich. 2018).\\nThough Ford had not moved for summary judgment, the\\ndistrict court announced its intention to enter judgment in\\nfavor of Ford sua sponte pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil\\nProcedure 56(f)(1). Id. at 707. ABPA responded, agreeing\\nthat it had not “include[d] any additional argument, au-\\nthorities, or evidence beyond that which has already been\\nconsidered by this Court,” and stating that it “d[id] not ob-\\nject to the prompt entry of final judgment so that [it could]\\nfile a notice of appeal.” J.A. 2149. The district court en-\\ntered summary judgment, and ABPA appeals.\\n\\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 5\\n\\n\\n\\n DISCUSSION\\n We review the district court’s sua sponte grant of sum-\\nmary judgment under the law of the regional circuit. See\\nCharles Mach. Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 723 F.3d\\n1376, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In the Sixth Circuit, “[t]he\\nsubstance of the district court’s decision is reviewed de\\nnovo under the normal standards for summary judgment.”\\nLeffman v. Sprint Corp., 481 F.3d 428, 430 (6th Cir. 2007)\\n(“The district court’s procedural decision to enter summary\\njudgment sua sponte, however, is reviewed for abuse of dis-\\ncretion.” (quoting Shelby Cty. Health Care Corp. v. S.\\nCouncil of Indus. Workers Health & Welfare Trust Fund,\\n203 F.3d 926, 931 (6th Cir. 2000))). Accordingly, we deter-\\nmine whether, after weighing all inferences in favor of\\nABPA, Ford is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1 See\\nLeary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 897 (6th Cir. 2003).\\n I\\n We first address ABPA’s invalidity arguments. Sec-\\ntion 171 of Title 35 authorizes patents claiming “new, orig-\\ninal and ornamental design[s] for an article of\\nmanufacture.” 35 U.S.C. § 171(a) (emphasis added). Our\\nprecedent gives weight to this language, holding that a de-\\nsign patent must claim an “ornamental” design, not one\\n“dictated by function.” See, e.g., High Point Design LLC v.\\nBuyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013).\\nWe have recognized, however, that a valid design may con-\\ntain some functional elements. After all, “a design patent’s\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Ordinarily, we review a district court’s determina-\\ntion of whether a patented design is invalid due to func-\\ntionality for clear error. See Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v.\\nCovidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2015). ABPA\\ninvites us to revisit this standard and establish de novo re-\\nview. Given the de novo standard inherent in review of\\nsummary judgment, we do not reach this question.\\n\\f6 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nclaim protects an article of manufacture, which ‘necessarily\\nserves a utilitarian purpose.’” See Sport Dimension, Inc. v.\\nColeman Co., 820 F.3d 1316, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting\\nL.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117,\\n1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). But a design patent may not claim\\na “primarily functional” design. Id. “If [a] particular de-\\nsign is essential to the use of the article, it can not be the\\nsubject of a design patent.” L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123.\\n While “[w]e have not mandated applying any particu-\\nlar test,” certain considerations assist courts in assessing\\nwhether a design is dictated by function. Ethicon, 796 F.3d\\nat 1329. These include:\\n [W]hether the protected design represents the best\\n design; whether alternative designs would ad-\\n versely affect the utility of the specified article;\\n whether there are any concomitant utility patents;\\n whether the advertising touts particular features\\n of the design as having specific utility; and whether\\n there are any elements in the design or an overall\\n appearance clearly not dictated by function.\\nBerry Sterling Corp. v. Pescor Plastics, Inc., 122 F.3d 1452,\\n1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We have often emphasized the pres-\\nence or absence of alternative designs, noting that the ex-\\nistence of “several ways to achieve the function of an article\\nof manufacture,” though not dispositive, increases the like-\\nlihood that a design serves a primarily ornamental pur-\\npose. Id. (quoting L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123); see also\\nNordock, Inc. v. Sys. Inc., 803 F.3d 1344, 1361 (Fed. Cir.\\n2015) (affirming ornamentality where record showed “al-\\nternate designs available achieve the same utilitarian pur-\\npose”), vacated on other grounds, 137 S. Ct. 589 (2016);\\nRosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co., 304 F.3d 1373, 1378\\n(Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[I]f other designs could produce the same\\nor similar functional capabilities, the design of the article\\nin question is likely ornamental, not functional.”).\\n\\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 7\\n\\n\\n\\n A\\n ABPA posits (without record support) that consumers\\nseeking replacement parts prefer hoods and headlamps\\nthat restore the original appearance of their vehicles. It\\nconcludes that there is a functional benefit to designs that\\nare aesthetically compatible with those vehicles. See, e.g.,\\nAppellant’s Br. 8–9 (“The function of the claimed designs\\nincludes their appearance . . . .”). From there, rather than\\narguing that Ford’s designs are functional because they\\nachieve some mechanical or utilitarian goal, ABPA argues\\nthat Ford’s hood and headlamp designs are functional be-\\ncause they aesthetically match the F-150 truck. But ABPA\\ndoes not identify, nor can we find, any design patent case\\nruling aesthetic appeal of this type functional.\\n We hold that, even in this context of a consumer pref-\\nerence for a particular design to match other parts of a\\nwhole, the aesthetic appeal of a design to consumers is in-\\nadequate to render that design functional. As the Supreme\\nCourt acknowledged almost 150 years ago, “giving certain\\nnew and original appearances to a manufactured article\\nmay enhance its salable value, [and] may enlarge the de-\\nmand for it.” Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 525\\n(1871). But regardless of the market advantage conferred\\nby a patented appearance, competitors may not utilize a\\nprotected design during the patent’s life. See id.; see also\\n35 U.S.C. § 289. To hold that designs that derive commer-\\ncial value from their aesthetic appeal are functional and\\nineligible for protection, as ABPA asks, would gut these\\nprinciples. The very “thing . . . for which [the] patent is\\ngiven, is that which gives a peculiar or distinctive appear-\\nance,” its aesthetic. Gorham, 81 U.S. at 525. If customers\\nprefer the “peculiar or distinctive appearance” of Ford’s de-\\nsigns over that of other designs that perform the same me-\\nchanical or utilitarian functions, that is exactly the type of\\nmarket advantage “manifestly contemplate[d]” by Con-\\ngress in the laws authorizing design patents. Id.\\n\\f8 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n B\\n ABPA’s contrary arguments are unpersuasive. It first\\nasks us to borrow the principle of “aesthetic functionality”\\nfrom trademark law. In that context, courts have ex-\\nplained that a party cannot use trademark protection to\\nprevent its competitors from using “important product in-\\ngredient[s],” Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S.\\n159, 170 (1995), or “from making their products as visually\\nentrancing as [its] own,” Pub’ns Int’l, Ltd. v. Landoll, Inc.,\\n164 F.3d 337, 339 (7th Cir. 1998) (Posner, J.) (explaining\\nthat trademark and trade dress protection are unavailable\\n“if consumers derive a value from the fact that a product\\nlooks a certain way that is distinct from the value of know-\\ning at a glance who made it”). In Qualitex, the Supreme\\nCourt permitted a party to trademark a particular color\\nonly after explaining that protection might not be available\\nif the “color serve[d] a significant nontrademark function.”\\nQualitex, 514 U.S. at 170.\\n ABPA acknowledges that no court has applied “aes-\\nthetic functionality” to design patents, but it asks us to be-\\ncome the first. Appellant’s Br. 28–29. We decline. Though\\ntrademarks and design patents have certain similarities,\\nsee id. at 29–30, it does not follow that trademark princi-\\nples apply equally to design patents. Trademarks and de-\\nsign patents serve different purposes and have different\\ngoverning law. Trademarks promote competition by per-\\nmitting a perpetual monopoly over symbols that “distin-\\nguish[] a firm’s goods and identif[y] their source, without\\nserving any other significant function.” Qualitex, 514 U.S.\\nat 166. Trademarks ensure that a particular producer\\nreaps the rewards—and bears the risks—of its products’\\nquality and desirability. See id. at 163–64. It follows that\\na company may not indefinitely inhibit competition by\\ntrademarking features, whether utilitarian or aesthetic,\\n“that either are not associated with a particular producer\\nor that have value to consumers that is independent of\\nidentification.” Pub’ns Int’l, 164 F.3d at 339; see also\\n\\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 9\\n\\n\\n\\nQualitex, 514 U.S. at 164–65 (holding companies may not\\n“inhibit[] legitimate competition” by trademarking desira-\\nble features to “put competitors at a significant non-repu-\\ntation-related disadvantage”). In contrast, design patents\\nexpressly grant to their owners exclusive rights to a partic-\\nular aesthetic for a limited period of time. See Qualitex,\\n514 U.S. at 164; see also U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. The\\nconsiderations that drive the aesthetic functionality doc-\\ntrine of trademark law simply do not apply to design pa-\\ntents.\\n ABPA also attempts to justify its functionality argu-\\nment with reference to our case law, but it misunderstands\\nour precedent. In Best Lock Corp. v. Ilco Unican Corp.,\\n94 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1996), we considered a design pa-\\ntent for a key “blade,” the portion of the key that interacts\\nwith a lock to open or close it. Id. at 1564. The parties\\nagreed that “the key blade must be designed as shown in\\norder to perform its intended function—to fit into its corre-\\nsponding lock’s keyway. An attempt to create a key blade\\nwith a different design would necessarily fail because no\\nalternative blank key blade would fit the corresponding\\nlock.” Id. at 1566. On those facts, we affirmed the district\\ncourt’s finding that the claimed key blade design was dic-\\ntated solely by function, and the design patent was invalid.\\nId. ABPA argues that only Ford’s patented designs aes-\\nthetically “match” the F-150, 2 and attempts to analogize\\nBest Lock to the instant case. But Best Lock turned on the\\nadmitted fact that no alternatively designed blade would\\nmechanically operate the lock—not that the blade and lock\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 ABPA also briefly suggests that insurers require\\nrepair parts to use Ford’s original designs with the F-150\\nbut cites no evidentiary support. ABPA’s own witness ex-\\nplained that insurers simply pay a sum of money for re-\\npairs; they do not dictate whether a repair is even made.\\nJ.A. 1312.\\n\\f10 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nwere aesthetically compatible. Id.; see also Static Control\\nComponents, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 697 F.3d 387, 395,\\n422 (6th Cir. 2012) (holding a printer cartridge design func-\\ntional where “each company’s cartridges will work with\\nonly its brand of printers” and “the design of the printer\\ndictated the exact design of the cartridge”).\\n Best Lock is distinguished for yet another reason. Ford\\nintroduced abundant evidence of alternative headlamp and\\nhood designs that physically fit its trucks. See Auto. Body\\nParts, 293 F. Supp. 3d at 703 (reproducing images);\\nJ.A. 2442–43. ABPA’s own witnesses testified to the exist-\\nence of “performance parts” that have a different “design or\\nshape” than the manufacturer’s parts so that they have\\n“some aesthetic appeal or something like that.” J.A. 940–\\n41; see also J.A. 1312–13 (testifying that customers select\\nperformance parts because “[t]hey want [their vehicles] to\\nlook different”). And ABPA admitted that a “performance\\npart” “will fit the associated vehicle . . . but may differ in\\nappearance from the original part.” J.A. 1330; see also\\nJ.A. 1340 (same). On these facts, Best Lock bears little sim-\\nilarity to this case.\\n Similarly, ABPA urges us to rule that Ford’s designs\\nare not a “matter of concern” to consumers. We have ex-\\nplained that a design is generally not a “matter of concern,”\\nand lacks ornamentality, if it may not be observed or if it\\nis assessed only for functionality. See In re Webb, 916 F.2d\\n1553, 1557–58 (Fed. Cir. 1990). ABPA avers that consum-\\ners assess Ford’s designs only to assess their aesthetic com-\\npatibility with the F-150. But by definition, if a consumer\\nassesses the aesthetic of a design in considering whether to\\npurchase it, the design is a matter of concern. See id. In-\\ndeed, ABPA and its witnesses admitted that customers se-\\nlect replacement parts from among multiple different\\ndesigns based on their preferred aesthetic, further under-\\nmining ABPA’s position. See J.A. 940–41, 1312–13, 1330,\\n1340. And regardless, the district court found that “it is\\nbeyond reasonable debate that the design of an auto-body\\n\\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 11\\n\\n\\n\\npart is important to consumers at least when they are de-\\nciding which car to buy.” Auto. Body Parts, 293 F. Supp. 3d\\nat 701. ABPA fails to explain how that well-supported\\nfinding constitutes error.\\n Finally, ABPA asks this court to rule, as a matter of\\npolicy, that Ford’s design patents may be enforced only in\\nthe initial market for sale of the F-150, and not in the mar-\\nket for replacement components. Appellant’s Br. 36.\\nABPA argues that a market-specific rule is appropriate be-\\ncause customers have different concerns in different con-\\ntexts. It declares that customers care about design in the\\ninitial sales market, but not when they select replacement\\nparts. But ABPA cites no supporting facts. Instead, it ig-\\nnores abundant record evidence regarding performance\\nparts available as replacements for customers who “want\\n[their vehicles] to look different.” J.A. 1312–13. It cites no\\npatent case to support its argument. And it seeks to side-\\nstep our precedent, which asks “whether at some point in\\nthe life of the article an occasion (or occasions) arises when\\nthe appearance of the article becomes a ‘matter of con-\\ncern.’” Webb, 916 F.2d at 1557 (emphasis added). Finding\\nneither legal nor factual support for ABPA’s argument, we\\nreject it. 3 We therefore affirm the district court’s determi-\\nnation that ABPA failed, as a matter of law, to prove Ford’s\\ndesigns functional by clear and convincing evidence. See\\nEthicon, 796 F.3d at 1328 (discussing burden and standard\\nof proof).\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 A bill seeking to create a market-based analysis\\nspecifically for auto-body design patents was introduced in\\na previous Congress but has not become law. See PARTS\\nAct, S. 780, 113th Cong. (2013); J.A. 664. “[I]t is not our\\njob to apply laws that have not yet been written.” See Sony\\nCorp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417,\\n456 (1984).\\n\\f12 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n II\\n We next address ABPA’s contention that Ford’s pa-\\ntents are unenforceable against its members under the re-\\nlated doctrines of exhaustion and repair.\\n A\\n “The franchise which the patent grants, consists alto-\\ngether in the right to exclude every one from making, us-\\ning, or vending the thing patented, without the permission\\nof the patentee.” Bloomer v. McQuewan, 55 U.S. 539, 549\\n(1852). But when the patentee sells his invention, the\\nthing sold “is no longer within the limits of the monopoly.”\\nId.; see also United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265,\\n277–78 (1942). This “well-established” rule, dubbed ex-\\nhaustion, “marks the point where patent rights yield to the\\ncommon law principle against restraints on alienation.”\\nImpression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 137 S. Ct.\\n1523, 1531 (2017). An authorized sale compensates the pa-\\ntentee for his invention. After such a sale, the patentee\\nmay no longer “‘control the use or disposition’ of the prod-\\nuct.” Id. (quoting United States v. Univis Lens Co.,\\n316 U.S. 241, 250 (1942)). And the purchaser may use or\\ndispose of that product without incurring liability for in-\\nfringement. See, e.g., ExcelStor Tech., Inc. v. Papst Licens-\\ning GMBH & Co. KG, 541 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2008)\\n(“patent exhaustion is a defense to patent infringement”).\\n Ford concedes that when it sells an F-150, its patents\\nare exhausted as to the components actually sold as part of\\nthat truck. Oral Arg. at 17:58–18:24, http://oralargu-\\nments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2018-1613.mp3.\\nABPA argues that exhaustion extends further, asserting\\nthat the sale of an F-150 truck totally exhausts any design\\npatents embodied in the truck and permits use of Ford’s\\ndesigns on replacement parts so long as those parts are in-\\ntended for use with Ford’s trucks. See Appellant’s Br. 43–\\n45. But exhaustion attaches only to items sold by, or with\\nthe authorization of, the patentee. See Jazz Photo Corp. v.\\n\\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 13\\n\\n\\n\\nInt’l Trade Comm’n, 264 F.3d 1094, 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2001)\\n(explaining that an authorized sale “‘exhausts’ the pa-\\ntentee’s right to control further sale and use of that article”\\nbut does not permit a “second creation of the patented en-\\ntity” (emphasis added)), overruled on other grounds by Im-\\npression Prod., 137 S. Ct. at 1538; see also Bowman v.\\nMonsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278, 286 (2013) (“The exhaustion\\ndoctrine is limited to the ‘particular item’ sold . . . .”).\\nABPA’s members’ sales are not authorized by Ford; it fol-\\nlows that exhaustion does not protect them. See Helferich\\nPatent Licensing, LLC v. N.Y. Times Co., 778 F.3d 1293,\\n1302 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]he decisions finding exhaus-\\ntion . . . have done so only when . . . an authorized acquirer\\nwas using the same invention by infringing the asserted\\nclaims.” (emphases added)).\\n ABPA asks us to “adapt[]” this rule for design cases.\\nSee Appellant’s Br. 49. But we apply the same rules to de-\\nsign and utility patents whenever possible. See 35 U.S.C.\\n§ 171(b) (“The provisions of this title relating to patents for\\ninventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as oth-\\nerwise provided.”). Accordingly, we have held that princi-\\nples of prosecution history estoppel, inventorship,\\nanticipation, and obviousness apply to both design patents\\nand utility patents. See, e.g., Pac. Coast Marine Wind-\\nshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, 739 F.3d 694, 702\\n(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The same principles of public notice that\\nunderlie prosecution history estoppel apply to design pa-\\ntents as well as utility patents.”); Hoop v. Hoop, 279 F.3d\\n1004, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“We apply the same standard\\nof inventorship to design patents that we require for utility\\npatents.”); Hupp v. Siroflex of Am., Inc., 122 F.3d 1456,\\n1461 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“In determining whether a design\\npatent is invalid based on a description in a printed publi-\\ncation, . . . the factual inquiry is the same as that which de-\\ntermines anticipation by prior publication of the subject\\nmatter of a utility patent . . . .”); In re Borden, 90 F.3d 1570,\\n1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Design patents are subject to the\\n\\f14 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nsame conditions on patentability as utility patents, includ-\\ning the nonobviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 103.”).\\nWe see no persuasive reason to depart from this standard\\nfor the exhaustion doctrine.\\n ABPA points to the Supreme Court’s decision in\\nQuanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617\\n(2008), to assert that we should nevertheless create a de-\\nsign-patent-specific rule for exhaustion. Appellant’s\\nBr. 49. In Quanta, the Court rejected an attempt to exempt\\nmethod claims from exhaustion. See Quanta, 553 U.S.\\nat 628. After reviewing the history and purpose of the doc-\\ntrine, the Court noted that “[o]ur precedents do not differ-\\nentiate transactions involving embodiments of patented\\nmethods or processes from those involving patented appa-\\nratuses or materials.” Id. at 628–29. It therefore held that\\nlike other utility patents, method patents are exhausted by\\nthe authorized sale of an item embodying the claimed in-\\nvention. Id. at 638. And accordingly, it determined that\\nthe sale of a microprocessor embodying a method patent\\nexhausts that patent. See id. It did not, however, hold that\\npurchasers of those microprocessors could make their own,\\nnew microprocessors using the patented invention, as\\nABPA suggests. Far from supporting ABPA’s position,\\nQuanta supports our reluctance to establish special rules\\nfor design patents—our precedents do not differentiate\\ntransactions involving embodiments of patented designs\\nfrom those involving patented processes or methods. See,\\ne.g., Jazz Photo, 264 F.3d at 1110 (“[T]he principle of ex-\\nhaustion applies to the design patents as well as to the util-\\nity patents.”).\\n B\\n ABPA’s right of repair argument is equally unpersua-\\nsive. The right of use transferred to a purchaser by an au-\\nthorized sale “include[s] the right to repair the patented\\narticle.” Kendall Co. v. Progressive Med. Tech., Inc.,\\n85 F.3d 1570, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The right of repair\\n\\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 15\\n\\n\\n\\ndoes not, however, permit a complete reconstruction of a\\npatented device or component. See Helferich, 778 F.3d\\nat 1303–05 (noting purchaser cannot recreate patented\\nproduct); Kendall, 85 F.3d at 1573–74 (explaining that\\nwhile a purchaser may not undertake a “complete ‘recon-\\nstruction’” of the patented device, he may replace “individ-\\nual unpatented components” of the patented article\\n(emphasis added)). And it does not permit a purchaser to\\ninfringe other patents by manufacturing separately pa-\\ntented components of the purchased article. See Aro Mfg.\\nCo. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336, 346\\n(1961) (“[R]eplacement of a spent, unpatented element does\\nnot constitute reconstruction. The decisions of this Court\\nrequire the conclusion that reconstruction of a patented en-\\ntity, comprised of unpatented elements, is limited to such\\na true reconstruction of the entity as to ‘in fact make a new\\narticle’ . . . .” (emphasis added) (quoting United States v.\\nAluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416, 425 (2d Cir. 1945)\\n(Hand, J.))); Helferich, 778 F.3d at 1303–05 (noting prohi-\\nbition on reconstruction).\\n ABPA argues that purchasers of Ford’s F-150 trucks\\nare licensed to repair those trucks using replacement parts\\nthat embody Ford’s hood and headlamp design patents.\\nBut straightforward application of long-standing case law\\ncompels the opposite conclusion. Over 150 years ago, a\\nNew Hampshire court considered facts similar to those of\\nthis case in Aiken v. Manchester Print Works, 1 F. Cas. 245\\n(C.C.D.N.H. 1865). There, the patentee sold a patented\\nknitting machine whose needles wore out on a regular ba-\\nsis. Id. at 245–46. Though the needles were covered by a\\nseparate patent, the accused infringers argued that they\\ncould properly manufacture replacement needles to con-\\ntinue using the knitting machine they had purchased. The\\ncourt disagreed, holding that “the needle is subject to a pa-\\ntent, and in making and using it they have infringed.” Id.\\nat 247. It distinguished an earlier Supreme Court case in\\nwhich a purchaser had been permitted to replace the\\n\\f16 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nknives used in a patented cutting machine, noting “the cut-\\nters and knives, in [Wilson v. Simpson, 50 U.S. 109 (1850)],\\nwere not subject to a patent.” Id. The Supreme Court en-\\ndorsed Aiken’s reasoning in Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany\\nPerforated Wrapping Paper Co., 152 U.S. 425, 435–36\\n(1894), and its reasoning governs here. Ford’s patents\\nclaim “[t]he ornamental design for exterior of vehicle hood,”\\nsee D’299 patent, Claim, and “[t]he ornamental design for\\na vehicle head lamp,” see D’685 patent, Claim. The designs\\nmay be embodied in the hoods and headlamps that form\\npart of the full F-150 truck or in separate hoods and head-\\nlamps. But though a sale of the F-150 truck permits the\\npurchaser to repair the designs as applied to the specific\\nhood and headlamps sold on the truck, the purchaser may\\nnot create new hoods and headlamps using Ford’s designs.\\nLike the needles in Aiken, such new hoods and headlamps\\nare subject to Ford’s design patents, and manufacturing\\nnew copies of those designs constitutes infringement.\\n ABPA attempts to distinguish Aiken and its progeny by\\nasserting that these cases apply only to utility patents.\\nABPA urges us to adopt a new rule that recognizes the\\n“unique nature” of design patents. See Appellant’s Reply\\nBr. 18. In particular, ABPA claims that the statutory lan-\\nguage authorizing design patents dictates such a rule. Un-\\nlike 35 U.S.C. § 101, which authorizes utility patents for a\\n“process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,\\nor any new and useful improvement thereof,” 35 U.S.C.\\n§ 171 permits design patents for a “design for an article of\\nmanufacture.” ABPA argues that because “article of man-\\nufacture,” is a term broad enough to include both a product\\ncomponent and the product itself, see Samsung Elecs. Co.\\nv. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429, 434 (2016), sale of either the\\ncomponent (i.e., the hood or headlamp) or the whole prod-\\nuct (i.e., the F-150) totally exhausts a design patent and\\npermits unlimited repair. See Appellant’s Br. 43–58.\\n We disagree. In our view, the breadth of the term “ar-\\nticle of manufacture” simply means that Ford could\\n\\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 17\\n\\n\\n\\nproperly have claimed its designs as applied to the entire\\nF-150 or as applied to the hood and headlamp. To deter-\\nmine what repair rights apply, we look to what Ford actu-\\nally claimed. As always, “the name of the game is the\\nclaim.” Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.,\\n632 F.3d 1246, 1255 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Giles S.\\nRich, The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of\\nClaims–American Perspectives, 21 Int’l Rev. Indus. Prop. &\\nCopyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Ford chose to claim de-\\nsigns as applied to portions of particular components, and\\nthe law permits it to do so. See, e.g., Samsung, 137 S. Ct.\\nat 435; Gorham, 81 U.S. at 512. That the auto-body com-\\nponents covered by Ford’s patents may require replace-\\nment does not compel a special rule. Just as the patentee\\nin Aiken could have only claimed the needles in conjunction\\nwith the knitting machine, Ford could have only claimed\\nits design as applied to the whole truck. Unfortunately for\\nABPA, Ford did not do so; the designs for Ford’s hood and\\nheadlamp are covered by distinct patents, and to make and\\nuse those designs without Ford’s authorization is to in-\\nfringe. See Aiken, 1 F. Cas. at 247. 4\\n We thus reject ABPA’s attempts to develop design pa-\\ntent-specific exhaustion and repair rules. 5 Consequently,\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 ABPA asserts that Ford’s purchasers are unaware\\nof the design patents covering the hood and headlamp and\\nsuggests that as a result we should permit their use of the\\npatented designs. Appellant’s Br. 56–57. Even if purchas-\\ners are unaware—and ABPA cites no factual support for\\nthat assertion—direct infringement does not require\\nknowledge of a patent. See Glob.-Tech Appliances, Inc. v.\\nSEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 761 n.2 (2011) (“[A] direct in-\\nfringer’s knowledge or intent is irrelevant.”).\\n 5 As an additional argument for affirmance, Ford as-\\nserts that because ABPA and its members are not them-\\nselves the purchasers of Ford’s trucks, they cannot benefit\\n\\f18 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nwe affirm the district court’s ruling that ABPA has not\\nshown that Ford’s designs for an F-150 hood and headlamp\\nare exhausted when Ford sells an F-150 truck.\\n CONCLUSION\\n Having considered the parties’ remaining arguments\\nand found them unpersuasive, we affirm the district court.\\n AFFIRMED\\n COSTS\\n Costs to Appellee.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nfrom an implied license to repair the trucks. See Appellee’s\\nBr. 43–45. For purposes of this opinion, we do not reach\\nthis issue.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4419160/\", \"author_raw\": \"STOLL, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"HUGHES"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SCHALL"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"STOLL"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641907/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-11\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS ASSOCIATION,\n Plaintiff-Appellant\n\n v.\n\n FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,\n Defendant-Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2018-1613\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\nEastern District of Michigan in No. 2:15-cv-10137-LJM-\nRSW, Judge Laurie J. Michelson.\n ______________________\n\n SEALED OPINION ISSUED: July 11, 2019\n PUBLIC OPINION ISSUED: July 23, 2019 *\n ______________________\n\n ROBERT GLENN OAKE, JR., Oake Law Office, Allen, TX,\nargued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by PAUL\nKITTINGER, Cardelli Lanfear PC, Royal Oak, MI.\n\n JESSICA LYNN ELLSWORTH, Hogan Lovells US LLP,\nWashington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also rep-\nresented by KATHERINE BOOTH WELLINGTON; FRANK A.\n\n\n * This opinion was originally filed under seal and has\nbeen unsealed in full.\n\f2 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\n\n\n\n\nANGILERI, MARC LORELLI, Brooks Kushman PC, Southfield,\nMI.\n ______________________\n\n Before HUGHES, SCHALL, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\nSTOLL, Circuit Judge.\n This case involves both differences and similarities be-\ntween design patents and utility patents. A design patent\nprotects a “new, original and ornamental design for an ar-\nticle of manufacture.” 35 U.S.C. § 171(a). While estab-\nlished law bars design patents on primarily functional\ndesigns for lack of ornamentality, utility patents must be\nfunctional to be patentable. In many other ways though,\ndesign and utility patents are similar. Section 171(b) of\nTitle 35 demands as much, directing that the requirements\nthat apply to “patents for inventions shall apply to patents\nfor designs” unless otherwise provided.\n Here, we decide what types of functionality invalidate\na design patent and determine whether long-standing\nrules of patent exhaustion and repair rights applicable to\nutility patents also apply to design patents. Automotive\nBody Parts Association (ABPA) asks us to hold that the\naesthetic appeal—rather than any mechanical or utilitar-\nian aspect—of a patented design may render it functional.\nAnd it asks us to expand the doctrines of exhaustion and\nrepair to recognize the “unique nature” of design patents.\nBoth theories invite us to rewrite established law to permit\nABPA to evade Ford Global Technologies, LLC’s patent\nrights. We decline ABPA’s invitation and affirm the dis-\ntrict court’s summary judgment.\n BACKGROUND\n I\n Ford’s U.S. Patent No. D489,299 and U.S. Patent\nNo. D501,685 protect designs used in certain models of\nFord’s F-150 trucks. The D’299 patent, titled “Exterior of\n\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 3\n\n\n\nVehicle Hood,” claims “[t]he ornamental design for exterior\nof vehicle hood.” Figure 1, below, illustrates the hood.\n\n\n\n\nThe D’685 patent, titled “Vehicle Head Lamp,” claims\n“[t]he ornamental design for a vehicle head lamp,” as\nshown in Figures 1 and 2, reproduced below.\n\n\n\n\nThe inventors of these designs are artists holding Bachelor\nof Fine Arts degrees from the College for Creative Studies.\nIn a declaration, one inventor explained that the inventors\nhad “full control and responsibility for the exterior appear-\nance of the . . . Ford F-150 truck,” that “the design team\ncreated and selected part designs based on aesthetic ap-\npearance,” and that although engineers reviewed the final\ndesigns, “[t]here were no changes to the aesthetic\n\f4 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\n\n\n\n\ndesigns of the[] parts based on engineering or functional\nrequirements.” J.A. 2538–39.\n II\n ABPA, an association of companies that distribute au-\ntomotive body parts, clashed with Ford at the International\nTrade Commission when Ford accused a number of ABPA\nmembers of infringing the D’299 and D’685 patents, among\nothers. The ITC actions eventually settled, but only after\nthe administrative law judge ruled that “respondents’ [in-\nvalidity] defense that the asserted patents do not comply\nwith the ornamentality requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 171 has\nno basis in the law,” J.A. 256, and that “there is no legal\nbasis for respondents’ assertion of [unenforceability based\non] either the patent exhaustion or permissible repair doc-\ntrines,” J.A. 242.\n Undeterred, ABPA sued Ford in district court, seeking\na declaratory judgment of invalidity or unenforceability of\nthe D’299 and D’685 patents. ABPA eventually moved for\nsummary judgment. The district court considered ABPA’s\narguments and denied the motion, noting that ABPA “ef-\nfectively ask[ed] this Court to eliminate design patents on\nauto-body parts.” Auto. Body Parts Ass’n v. Ford Glob.\nTechs., LLC, 293 F. Supp. 3d 690, 694 (E.D. Mich. 2018).\nThough Ford had not moved for summary judgment, the\ndistrict court announced its intention to enter judgment in\nfavor of Ford sua sponte pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil\nProcedure 56(f)(1). Id. at 707. ABPA responded, agreeing\nthat it had not “include[d] any additional argument, au-\nthorities, or evidence beyond that which has already been\nconsidered by this Court,” and stating that it “d[id] not ob-\nject to the prompt entry of final judgment so that [it could]\nfile a notice of appeal.” J.A. 2149. The district court en-\ntered summary judgment, and ABPA appeals.\n\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 5\n\n\n\n DISCUSSION\n We review the district court’s sua sponte grant of sum-\nmary judgment under the law of the regional circuit. See\nCharles Mach. Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 723 F.3d\n1376, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In the Sixth Circuit, “[t]he\nsubstance of the district court’s decision is reviewed de\nnovo under the normal standards for summary judgment.”\nLeffman v. Sprint Corp., 481 F.3d 428, 430 (6th Cir. 2007)\n(“The district court’s procedural decision to enter summary\njudgment sua sponte, however, is reviewed for abuse of dis-\ncretion.” (quoting Shelby Cty. Health Care Corp. v. S.\nCouncil of Indus. Workers Health & Welfare Trust Fund,\n203 F.3d 926, 931 (6th Cir. 2000))). Accordingly, we deter-\nmine whether, after weighing all inferences in favor of\nABPA, Ford is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1 See\nLeary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 897 (6th Cir. 2003).\n I\n We first address ABPA’s invalidity arguments. Sec-\ntion 171 of Title 35 authorizes patents claiming “new, orig-\ninal and ornamental design[s] for an article of\nmanufacture.” 35 U.S.C. § 171(a) (emphasis added). Our\nprecedent gives weight to this language, holding that a de-\nsign patent must claim an “ornamental” design, not one\n“dictated by function.” See, e.g., High Point Design LLC v.\nBuyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013).\nWe have recognized, however, that a valid design may con-\ntain some functional elements. After all, “a design patent’s\n\n\n\n 1 Ordinarily, we review a district court’s determina-\ntion of whether a patented design is invalid due to func-\ntionality for clear error. See Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v.\nCovidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2015). ABPA\ninvites us to revisit this standard and establish de novo re-\nview. Given the de novo standard inherent in review of\nsummary judgment, we do not reach this question.\n\f6 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\n\n\n\n\nclaim protects an article of manufacture, which ‘necessarily\nserves a utilitarian purpose.’” See Sport Dimension, Inc. v.\nColeman Co., 820 F.3d 1316, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting\nL.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117,\n1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). But a design patent may not claim\na “primarily functional” design. Id. “If [a] particular de-\nsign is essential to the use of the article, it can not be the\nsubject of a design patent.” L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123.\n While “[w]e have not mandated applying any particu-\nlar test,” certain considerations assist courts in assessing\nwhether a design is dictated by function. Ethicon, 796 F.3d\nat 1329. These include:\n [W]hether the protected design represents the best\n design; whether alternative designs would ad-\n versely affect the utility of the specified article;\n whether there are any concomitant utility patents;\n whether the advertising touts particular features\n of the design as having specific utility; and whether\n there are any elements in the design or an overall\n appearance clearly not dictated by function.\nBerry Sterling Corp. v. Pescor Plastics, Inc., 122 F.3d 1452,\n1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We have often emphasized the pres-\nence or absence of alternative designs, noting that the ex-\nistence of “several ways to achieve the function of an article\nof manufacture,” though not dispositive, increases the like-\nlihood that a design serves a primarily ornamental pur-\npose. Id. (quoting L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123); see also\nNordock, Inc. v. Sys. Inc., 803 F.3d 1344, 1361 (Fed. Cir.\n2015) (affirming ornamentality where record showed “al-\nternate designs available achieve the same utilitarian pur-\npose”), vacated on other grounds, 137 S. Ct. 589 (2016);\nRosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co., 304 F.3d 1373, 1378\n(Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[I]f other designs could produce the same\nor similar functional capabilities, the design of the article\nin question is likely ornamental, not functional.”).\n\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 7\n\n\n\n A\n ABPA posits (without record support) that consumers\nseeking replacement parts prefer hoods and headlamps\nthat restore the original appearance of their vehicles. It\nconcludes that there is a functional benefit to designs that\nare aesthetically compatible with those vehicles. See, e.g.,\nAppellant’s Br. 8–9 (“The function of the claimed designs\nincludes their appearance . . . .”). From there, rather than\narguing that Ford’s designs are functional because they\nachieve some mechanical or utilitarian goal, ABPA argues\nthat Ford’s hood and headlamp designs are functional be-\ncause they aesthetically match the F-150 truck. But ABPA\ndoes not identify, nor can we find, any design patent case\nruling aesthetic appeal of this type functional.\n We hold that, even in this context of a consumer pref-\nerence for a particular design to match other parts of a\nwhole, the aesthetic appeal of a design to consumers is in-\nadequate to render that design functional. As the Supreme\nCourt acknowledged almost 150 years ago, “giving certain\nnew and original appearances to a manufactured article\nmay enhance its salable value, [and] may enlarge the de-\nmand for it.” Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 525\n(1871). But regardless of the market advantage conferred\nby a patented appearance, competitors may not utilize a\nprotected design during the patent’s life. See id.; see also\n35 U.S.C. § 289. To hold that designs that derive commer-\ncial value from their aesthetic appeal are functional and\nineligible for protection, as ABPA asks, would gut these\nprinciples. The very “thing . . . for which [the] patent is\ngiven, is that which gives a peculiar or distinctive appear-\nance,” its aesthetic. Gorham, 81 U.S. at 525. If customers\nprefer the “peculiar or distinctive appearance” of Ford’s de-\nsigns over that of other designs that perform the same me-\nchanical or utilitarian functions, that is exactly the type of\nmarket advantage “manifestly contemplate[d]” by Con-\ngress in the laws authorizing design patents. Id.\n\f8 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\n\n\n\n\n B\n ABPA’s contrary arguments are unpersuasive. It first\nasks us to borrow the principle of “aesthetic functionality”\nfrom trademark law. In that context, courts have ex-\nplained that a party cannot use trademark protection to\nprevent its competitors from using “important product in-\ngredient[s],” Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S.\n159, 170 (1995), or “from making their products as visually\nentrancing as [its] own,” Pub’ns Int’l, Ltd. v. Landoll, Inc.,\n164 F.3d 337, 339 (7th Cir. 1998) (Posner, J.) (explaining\nthat trademark and trade dress protection are unavailable\n“if consumers derive a value from the fact that a product\nlooks a certain way that is distinct from the value of know-\ning at a glance who made it”). In Qualitex, the Supreme\nCourt permitted a party to trademark a particular color\nonly after explaining that protection might not be available\nif the “color serve[d] a significant nontrademark function.”\nQualitex, 514 U.S. at 170.\n ABPA acknowledges that no court has applied “aes-\nthetic functionality” to design patents, but it asks us to be-\ncome the first. Appellant’s Br. 28–29. We decline. Though\ntrademarks and design patents have certain similarities,\nsee id. at 29–30, it does not follow that trademark princi-\nples apply equally to design patents. Trademarks and de-\nsign patents serve different purposes and have different\ngoverning law. Trademarks promote competition by per-\nmitting a perpetual monopoly over symbols that “distin-\nguish[] a firm’s goods and identif[y] their source, without\nserving any other significant function.” Qualitex, 514 U.S.\nat 166. Trademarks ensure that a particular producer\nreaps the rewards—and bears the risks—of its products’\nquality and desirability. See id. at 163–64. It follows that\na company may not indefinitely inhibit competition by\ntrademarking features, whether utilitarian or aesthetic,\n“that either are not associated with a particular producer\nor that have value to consumers that is independent of\nidentification.” Pub’ns Int’l, 164 F.3d at 339; see also\n\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 9\n\n\n\nQualitex, 514 U.S. at 164–65 (holding companies may not\n“inhibit[] legitimate competition” by trademarking desira-\nble features to “put competitors at a significant non-repu-\ntation-related disadvantage”). In contrast, design patents\nexpressly grant to their owners exclusive rights to a partic-\nular aesthetic for a limited period of time. See Qualitex,\n514 U.S. at 164; see also U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. The\nconsiderations that drive the aesthetic functionality doc-\ntrine of trademark law simply do not apply to design pa-\ntents.\n ABPA also attempts to justify its functionality argu-\nment with reference to our case law, but it misunderstands\nour precedent. In Best Lock Corp. v. Ilco Unican Corp.,\n94 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1996), we considered a design pa-\ntent for a key “blade,” the portion of the key that interacts\nwith a lock to open or close it. Id. at 1564. The parties\nagreed that “the key blade must be designed as shown in\norder to perform its intended function—to fit into its corre-\nsponding lock’s keyway. An attempt to create a key blade\nwith a different design would necessarily fail because no\nalternative blank key blade would fit the corresponding\nlock.” Id. at 1566. On those facts, we affirmed the district\ncourt’s finding that the claimed key blade design was dic-\ntated solely by function, and the design patent was invalid.\nId. ABPA argues that only Ford’s patented designs aes-\nthetically “match” the F-150, 2 and attempts to analogize\nBest Lock to the instant case. But Best Lock turned on the\nadmitted fact that no alternatively designed blade would\nmechanically operate the lock—not that the blade and lock\n\n\n\n 2 ABPA also briefly suggests that insurers require\nrepair parts to use Ford’s original designs with the F-150\nbut cites no evidentiary support. ABPA’s own witness ex-\nplained that insurers simply pay a sum of money for re-\npairs; they do not dictate whether a repair is even made.\nJ.A. 1312.\n\f10 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\n\n\n\n\nwere aesthetically compatible. Id.; see also Static Control\nComponents, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 697 F.3d 387, 395,\n422 (6th Cir. 2012) (holding a printer cartridge design func-\ntional where “each company’s cartridges will work with\nonly its brand of printers” and “the design of the printer\ndictated the exact design of the cartridge”).\n Best Lock is distinguished for yet another reason. Ford\nintroduced abundant evidence of alternative headlamp and\nhood designs that physically fit its trucks. See Auto. Body\nParts, 293 F. Supp. 3d at 703 (reproducing images);\nJ.A. 2442–43. ABPA’s own witnesses testified to the exist-\nence of “performance parts” that have a different “design or\nshape” than the manufacturer’s parts so that they have\n“some aesthetic appeal or something like that.” J.A. 940–\n41; see also J.A. 1312–13 (testifying that customers select\nperformance parts because “[t]hey want [their vehicles] to\nlook different”). And ABPA admitted that a “performance\npart” “will fit the associated vehicle . . . but may differ in\nappearance from the original part.” J.A. 1330; see also\nJ.A. 1340 (same). On these facts, Best Lock bears little sim-\nilarity to this case.\n Similarly, ABPA urges us to rule that Ford’s designs\nare not a “matter of concern” to consumers. We have ex-\nplained that a design is generally not a “matter of concern,”\nand lacks ornamentality, if it may not be observed or if it\nis assessed only for functionality. See In re Webb, 916 F.2d\n1553, 1557–58 (Fed. Cir. 1990). ABPA avers that consum-\ners assess Ford’s designs only to assess their aesthetic com-\npatibility with the F-150. But by definition, if a consumer\nassesses the aesthetic of a design in considering whether to\npurchase it, the design is a matter of concern. See id. In-\ndeed, ABPA and its witnesses admitted that customers se-\nlect replacement parts from among multiple different\ndesigns based on their preferred aesthetic, further under-\nmining ABPA’s position. See J.A. 940–41, 1312–13, 1330,\n1340. And regardless, the district court found that “it is\nbeyond reasonable debate that the design of an auto-body\n\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 11\n\n\n\npart is important to consumers at least when they are de-\nciding which car to buy.” Auto. Body Parts, 293 F. Supp. 3d\nat 701. ABPA fails to explain how that well-supported\nfinding constitutes error.\n Finally, ABPA asks this court to rule, as a matter of\npolicy, that Ford’s design patents may be enforced only in\nthe initial market for sale of the F-150, and not in the mar-\nket for replacement components. Appellant’s Br. 36.\nABPA argues that a market-specific rule is appropriate be-\ncause customers have different concerns in different con-\ntexts. It declares that customers care about design in the\ninitial sales market, but not when they select replacement\nparts. But ABPA cites no supporting facts. Instead, it ig-\nnores abundant record evidence regarding performance\nparts available as replacements for customers who “want\n[their vehicles] to look different.” J.A. 1312–13. It cites no\npatent case to support its argument. And it seeks to side-\nstep our precedent, which asks “whether at some point in\nthe life of the article an occasion (or occasions) arises when\nthe appearance of the article becomes a ‘matter of con-\ncern.’” Webb, 916 F.2d at 1557 (emphasis added). Finding\nneither legal nor factual support for ABPA’s argument, we\nreject it. 3 We therefore affirm the district court’s determi-\nnation that ABPA failed, as a matter of law, to prove Ford’s\ndesigns functional by clear and convincing evidence. See\nEthicon, 796 F.3d at 1328 (discussing burden and standard\nof proof).\n\n\n\n\n 3 A bill seeking to create a market-based analysis\nspecifically for auto-body design patents was introduced in\na previous Congress but has not become law. See PARTS\nAct, S. 780, 113th Cong. (2013); J.A. 664. “[I]t is not our\njob to apply laws that have not yet been written.” See Sony\nCorp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417,\n456 (1984).\n\f12 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\n\n\n\n\n II\n We next address ABPA’s contention that Ford’s pa-\ntents are unenforceable against its members under the re-\nlated doctrines of exhaustion and repair.\n A\n “The franchise which the patent grants, consists alto-\ngether in the right to exclude every one from making, us-\ning, or vending the thing patented, without the permission\nof the patentee.” Bloomer v. McQuewan, 55 U.S. 539, 549\n(1852). But when the patentee sells his invention, the\nthing sold “is no longer within the limits of the monopoly.”\nId.; see also United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265,\n277–78 (1942). This “well-established” rule, dubbed ex-\nhaustion, “marks the point where patent rights yield to the\ncommon law principle against restraints on alienation.”\nImpression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 137 S. Ct.\n1523, 1531 (2017). An authorized sale compensates the pa-\ntentee for his invention. After such a sale, the patentee\nmay no longer “‘control the use or disposition’ of the prod-\nuct.” Id. (quoting United States v. Univis Lens Co.,\n316 U.S. 241, 250 (1942)). And the purchaser may use or\ndispose of that product without incurring liability for in-\nfringement. See, e.g., ExcelStor Tech., Inc. v. Papst Licens-\ning GMBH & Co. KG, 541 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2008)\n(“patent exhaustion is a defense to patent infringement”).\n Ford concedes that when it sells an F-150, its patents\nare exhausted as to the components actually sold as part of\nthat truck. Oral Arg. at 17:58–18:24, http://oralargu-\nments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2018-1613.mp3.\nABPA argues that exhaustion extends further, asserting\nthat the sale of an F-150 truck totally exhausts any design\npatents embodied in the truck and permits use of Ford’s\ndesigns on replacement parts so long as those parts are in-\ntended for use with Ford’s trucks. See Appellant’s Br. 43–\n45. But exhaustion attaches only to items sold by, or with\nthe authorization of, the patentee. See Jazz Photo Corp. v.\n\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 13\n\n\n\nInt’l Trade Comm’n, 264 F.3d 1094, 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2001)\n(explaining that an authorized sale “‘exhausts’ the pa-\ntentee’s right to control further sale and use of that article”\nbut does not permit a “second creation of the patented en-\ntity” (emphasis added)), overruled on other grounds by Im-\npression Prod., 137 S. Ct. at 1538; see also Bowman v.\nMonsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278, 286 (2013) (“The exhaustion\ndoctrine is limited to the ‘particular item’ sold . . . .”).\nABPA’s members’ sales are not authorized by Ford; it fol-\nlows that exhaustion does not protect them. See Helferich\nPatent Licensing, LLC v. N.Y. Times Co., 778 F.3d 1293,\n1302 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]he decisions finding exhaus-\ntion . . . have done so only when . . . an authorized acquirer\nwas using the same invention by infringing the asserted\nclaims.” (emphases added)).\n ABPA asks us to “adapt[]” this rule for design cases.\nSee Appellant’s Br. 49. But we apply the same rules to de-\nsign and utility patents whenever possible. See 35 U.S.C.\n§ 171(b) (“The provisions of this title relating to patents for\ninventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as oth-\nerwise provided.”). Accordingly, we have held that princi-\nples of prosecution history estoppel, inventorship,\nanticipation, and obviousness apply to both design patents\nand utility patents. See, e.g., Pac. Coast Marine Wind-\nshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, 739 F.3d 694, 702\n(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The same principles of public notice that\nunderlie prosecution history estoppel apply to design pa-\ntents as well as utility patents.”); Hoop v. Hoop, 279 F.3d\n1004, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“We apply the same standard\nof inventorship to design patents that we require for utility\npatents.”); Hupp v. Siroflex of Am., Inc., 122 F.3d 1456,\n1461 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“In determining whether a design\npatent is invalid based on a description in a printed publi-\ncation, . . . the factual inquiry is the same as that which de-\ntermines anticipation by prior publication of the subject\nmatter of a utility patent . . . .”); In re Borden, 90 F.3d 1570,\n1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Design patents are subject to the\n\f14 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\n\n\n\n\nsame conditions on patentability as utility patents, includ-\ning the nonobviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 103.”).\nWe see no persuasive reason to depart from this standard\nfor the exhaustion doctrine.\n ABPA points to the Supreme Court’s decision in\nQuanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617\n(2008), to assert that we should nevertheless create a de-\nsign-patent-specific rule for exhaustion. Appellant’s\nBr. 49. In Quanta, the Court rejected an attempt to exempt\nmethod claims from exhaustion. See Quanta, 553 U.S.\nat 628. After reviewing the history and purpose of the doc-\ntrine, the Court noted that “[o]ur precedents do not differ-\nentiate transactions involving embodiments of patented\nmethods or processes from those involving patented appa-\nratuses or materials.” Id. at 628–29. It therefore held that\nlike other utility patents, method patents are exhausted by\nthe authorized sale of an item embodying the claimed in-\nvention. Id. at 638. And accordingly, it determined that\nthe sale of a microprocessor embodying a method patent\nexhausts that patent. See id. It did not, however, hold that\npurchasers of those microprocessors could make their own,\nnew microprocessors using the patented invention, as\nABPA suggests. Far from supporting ABPA’s position,\nQuanta supports our reluctance to establish special rules\nfor design patents—our precedents do not differentiate\ntransactions involving embodiments of patented designs\nfrom those involving patented processes or methods. See,\ne.g., Jazz Photo, 264 F.3d at 1110 (“[T]he principle of ex-\nhaustion applies to the design patents as well as to the util-\nity patents.”).\n B\n ABPA’s right of repair argument is equally unpersua-\nsive. The right of use transferred to a purchaser by an au-\nthorized sale “include[s] the right to repair the patented\narticle.” Kendall Co. v. Progressive Med. Tech., Inc.,\n85 F.3d 1570, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The right of repair\n\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 15\n\n\n\ndoes not, however, permit a complete reconstruction of a\npatented device or component. See Helferich, 778 F.3d\nat 1303–05 (noting purchaser cannot recreate patented\nproduct); Kendall, 85 F.3d at 1573–74 (explaining that\nwhile a purchaser may not undertake a “complete ‘recon-\nstruction’” of the patented device, he may replace “individ-\nual unpatented components” of the patented article\n(emphasis added)). And it does not permit a purchaser to\ninfringe other patents by manufacturing separately pa-\ntented components of the purchased article. See Aro Mfg.\nCo. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336, 346\n(1961) (“[R]eplacement of a spent, unpatented element does\nnot constitute reconstruction. The decisions of this Court\nrequire the conclusion that reconstruction of a patented en-\ntity, comprised of unpatented elements, is limited to such\na true reconstruction of the entity as to ‘in fact make a new\narticle’ . . . .” (emphasis added) (quoting United States v.\nAluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416, 425 (2d Cir. 1945)\n(Hand, J.))); Helferich, 778 F.3d at 1303–05 (noting prohi-\nbition on reconstruction).\n ABPA argues that purchasers of Ford’s F-150 trucks\nare licensed to repair those trucks using replacement parts\nthat embody Ford’s hood and headlamp design patents.\nBut straightforward application of long-standing case law\ncompels the opposite conclusion. Over 150 years ago, a\nNew Hampshire court considered facts similar to those of\nthis case in Aiken v. Manchester Print Works, 1 F. Cas. 245\n(C.C.D.N.H. 1865). There, the patentee sold a patented\nknitting machine whose needles wore out on a regular ba-\nsis. Id. at 245–46. Though the needles were covered by a\nseparate patent, the accused infringers argued that they\ncould properly manufacture replacement needles to con-\ntinue using the knitting machine they had purchased. The\ncourt disagreed, holding that “the needle is subject to a pa-\ntent, and in making and using it they have infringed.” Id.\nat 247. It distinguished an earlier Supreme Court case in\nwhich a purchaser had been permitted to replace the\n\f16 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\n\n\n\n\nknives used in a patented cutting machine, noting “the cut-\nters and knives, in [Wilson v. Simpson, 50 U.S. 109 (1850)],\nwere not subject to a patent.” Id. The Supreme Court en-\ndorsed Aiken’s reasoning in Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany\nPerforated Wrapping Paper Co., 152 U.S. 425, 435–36\n(1894), and its reasoning governs here. Ford’s patents\nclaim “[t]he ornamental design for exterior of vehicle hood,”\nsee D’299 patent, Claim, and “[t]he ornamental design for\na vehicle head lamp,” see D’685 patent, Claim. The designs\nmay be embodied in the hoods and headlamps that form\npart of the full F-150 truck or in separate hoods and head-\nlamps. But though a sale of the F-150 truck permits the\npurchaser to repair the designs as applied to the specific\nhood and headlamps sold on the truck, the purchaser may\nnot create new hoods and headlamps using Ford’s designs.\nLike the needles in Aiken, such new hoods and headlamps\nare subject to Ford’s design patents, and manufacturing\nnew copies of those designs constitutes infringement.\n ABPA attempts to distinguish Aiken and its progeny by\nasserting that these cases apply only to utility patents.\nABPA urges us to adopt a new rule that recognizes the\n“unique nature” of design patents. See Appellant’s Reply\nBr. 18. In particular, ABPA claims that the statutory lan-\nguage authorizing design patents dictates such a rule. Un-\nlike 35 U.S.C. § 101, which authorizes utility patents for a\n“process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,\nor any new and useful improvement thereof,” 35 U.S.C.\n§ 171 permits design patents for a “design for an article of\nmanufacture.” ABPA argues that because “article of man-\nufacture,” is a term broad enough to include both a product\ncomponent and the product itself, see Samsung Elecs. Co.\nv. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429, 434 (2016), sale of either the\ncomponent (i.e., the hood or headlamp) or the whole prod-\nuct (i.e., the F-150) totally exhausts a design patent and\npermits unlimited repair. See Appellant’s Br. 43–58.\n We disagree. In our view, the breadth of the term “ar-\nticle of manufacture” simply means that Ford could\n\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 17\n\n\n\nproperly have claimed its designs as applied to the entire\nF-150 or as applied to the hood and headlamp. To deter-\nmine what repair rights apply, we look to what Ford actu-\nally claimed. As always, “the name of the game is the\nclaim.” Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.,\n632 F.3d 1246, 1255 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Giles S.\nRich, The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of\nClaims–American Perspectives, 21 Int’l Rev. Indus. Prop. &\nCopyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Ford chose to claim de-\nsigns as applied to portions of particular components, and\nthe law permits it to do so. See, e.g., Samsung, 137 S. Ct.\nat 435; Gorham, 81 U.S. at 512. That the auto-body com-\nponents covered by Ford’s patents may require replace-\nment does not compel a special rule. Just as the patentee\nin Aiken could have only claimed the needles in conjunction\nwith the knitting machine, Ford could have only claimed\nits design as applied to the whole truck. Unfortunately for\nABPA, Ford did not do so; the designs for Ford’s hood and\nheadlamp are covered by distinct patents, and to make and\nuse those designs without Ford’s authorization is to in-\nfringe. See Aiken, 1 F. Cas. at 247. 4\n We thus reject ABPA’s attempts to develop design pa-\ntent-specific exhaustion and repair rules. 5 Consequently,\n\n\n\n 4 ABPA asserts that Ford’s purchasers are unaware\nof the design patents covering the hood and headlamp and\nsuggests that as a result we should permit their use of the\npatented designs. Appellant’s Br. 56–57. Even if purchas-\ners are unaware—and ABPA cites no factual support for\nthat assertion—direct infringement does not require\nknowledge of a patent. See Glob.-Tech Appliances, Inc. v.\nSEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 761 n.2 (2011) (“[A] direct in-\nfringer’s knowledge or intent is irrelevant.”).\n 5 As an additional argument for affirmance, Ford as-\nserts that because ABPA and its members are not them-\nselves the purchasers of Ford’s trucks, they cannot benefit\n\f18 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\n\n\n\n\nwe affirm the district court’s ruling that ABPA has not\nshown that Ford’s designs for an F-150 hood and headlamp\nare exhausted when Ford sells an F-150 truck.\n CONCLUSION\n Having considered the parties’ remaining arguments\nand found them unpersuasive, we affirm the district court.\n AFFIRMED\n COSTS\n Costs to Appellee.\n\n\n\n\nfrom an implied license to repair the trucks. See Appellee’s\nBr. 43–45. For purposes of this opinion, we do not reach\nthis issue.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-11\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS ASSOCIATION,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,\\n Defendant-Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1613\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nEastern District of Michigan in No. 2:15-cv-10137-LJM-\\nRSW, Judge Laurie J. Michelson.\\n ______________________\\n\\n SEALED OPINION ISSUED: July 11, 2019\\n PUBLIC OPINION ISSUED: July 23, 2019 *\\n ______________________\\n\\n ROBERT GLENN OAKE, JR., Oake Law Office, Allen, TX,\\nargued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by PAUL\\nKITTINGER, Cardelli Lanfear PC, Royal Oak, MI.\\n\\n JESSICA LYNN ELLSWORTH, Hogan Lovells US LLP,\\nWashington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also rep-\\nresented by KATHERINE BOOTH WELLINGTON; FRANK A.\\n\\n\\n * This opinion was originally filed under seal and has\\nbeen unsealed in full.\\n\\f2 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nANGILERI, MARC LORELLI, Brooks Kushman PC, Southfield,\\nMI.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before HUGHES, SCHALL, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\\nSTOLL, Circuit Judge.\\n This case involves both differences and similarities be-\\ntween design patents and utility patents. A design patent\\nprotects a “new, original and ornamental design for an ar-\\nticle of manufacture.” 35 U.S.C. § 171(a). While estab-\\nlished law bars design patents on primarily functional\\ndesigns for lack of ornamentality, utility patents must be\\nfunctional to be patentable. In many other ways though,\\ndesign and utility patents are similar. Section 171(b) of\\nTitle 35 demands as much, directing that the requirements\\nthat apply to “patents for inventions shall apply to patents\\nfor designs” unless otherwise provided.\\n Here, we decide what types of functionality invalidate\\na design patent and determine whether long-standing\\nrules of patent exhaustion and repair rights applicable to\\nutility patents also apply to design patents. Automotive\\nBody Parts Association (ABPA) asks us to hold that the\\naesthetic appeal—rather than any mechanical or utilitar-\\nian aspect—of a patented design may render it functional.\\nAnd it asks us to expand the doctrines of exhaustion and\\nrepair to recognize the “unique nature” of design patents.\\nBoth theories invite us to rewrite established law to permit\\nABPA to evade Ford Global Technologies, LLC’s patent\\nrights. We decline ABPA’s invitation and affirm the dis-\\ntrict court’s summary judgment.\\n BACKGROUND\\n I\\n Ford’s U.S. Patent No. D489,299 and U.S. Patent\\nNo. D501,685 protect designs used in certain models of\\nFord’s F-150 trucks. The D’299 patent, titled “Exterior of\\n\\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 3\\n\\n\\n\\nVehicle Hood,” claims “[t]he ornamental design for exterior\\nof vehicle hood.” Figure 1, below, illustrates the hood.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe D’685 patent, titled “Vehicle Head Lamp,” claims\\n“[t]he ornamental design for a vehicle head lamp,” as\\nshown in Figures 1 and 2, reproduced below.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe inventors of these designs are artists holding Bachelor\\nof Fine Arts degrees from the College for Creative Studies.\\nIn a declaration, one inventor explained that the inventors\\nhad “full control and responsibility for the exterior appear-\\nance of the . . . Ford F-150 truck,” that “the design team\\ncreated and selected part designs based on aesthetic ap-\\npearance,” and that although engineers reviewed the final\\ndesigns, “[t]here were no changes to the aesthetic\\n\\f4 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ndesigns of the[] parts based on engineering or functional\\nrequirements.” J.A. 2538–39.\\n II\\n ABPA, an association of companies that distribute au-\\ntomotive body parts, clashed with Ford at the International\\nTrade Commission when Ford accused a number of ABPA\\nmembers of infringing the D’299 and D’685 patents, among\\nothers. The ITC actions eventually settled, but only after\\nthe administrative law judge ruled that “respondents’ [in-\\nvalidity] defense that the asserted patents do not comply\\nwith the ornamentality requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 171 has\\nno basis in the law,” J.A. 256, and that “there is no legal\\nbasis for respondents’ assertion of [unenforceability based\\non] either the patent exhaustion or permissible repair doc-\\ntrines,” J.A. 242.\\n Undeterred, ABPA sued Ford in district court, seeking\\na declaratory judgment of invalidity or unenforceability of\\nthe D’299 and D’685 patents. ABPA eventually moved for\\nsummary judgment. The district court considered ABPA’s\\narguments and denied the motion, noting that ABPA “ef-\\nfectively ask[ed] this Court to eliminate design patents on\\nauto-body parts.” Auto. Body Parts Ass’n v. Ford Glob.\\nTechs., LLC, 293 F. Supp. 3d 690, 694 (E.D. Mich. 2018).\\nThough Ford had not moved for summary judgment, the\\ndistrict court announced its intention to enter judgment in\\nfavor of Ford sua sponte pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil\\nProcedure 56(f)(1). Id. at 707. ABPA responded, agreeing\\nthat it had not “include[d] any additional argument, au-\\nthorities, or evidence beyond that which has already been\\nconsidered by this Court,” and stating that it “d[id] not ob-\\nject to the prompt entry of final judgment so that [it could]\\nfile a notice of appeal.” J.A. 2149. The district court en-\\ntered summary judgment, and ABPA appeals.\\n\\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 5\\n\\n\\n\\n DISCUSSION\\n We review the district court’s sua sponte grant of sum-\\nmary judgment under the law of the regional circuit. See\\nCharles Mach. Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 723 F.3d\\n1376, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In the Sixth Circuit, “[t]he\\nsubstance of the district court’s decision is reviewed de\\nnovo under the normal standards for summary judgment.”\\nLeffman v. Sprint Corp., 481 F.3d 428, 430 (6th Cir. 2007)\\n(“The district court’s procedural decision to enter summary\\njudgment sua sponte, however, is reviewed for abuse of dis-\\ncretion.” (quoting Shelby Cty. Health Care Corp. v. S.\\nCouncil of Indus. Workers Health & Welfare Trust Fund,\\n203 F.3d 926, 931 (6th Cir. 2000))). Accordingly, we deter-\\nmine whether, after weighing all inferences in favor of\\nABPA, Ford is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1 See\\nLeary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 897 (6th Cir. 2003).\\n I\\n We first address ABPA’s invalidity arguments. Sec-\\ntion 171 of Title 35 authorizes patents claiming “new, orig-\\ninal and ornamental design[s] for an article of\\nmanufacture.” 35 U.S.C. § 171(a) (emphasis added). Our\\nprecedent gives weight to this language, holding that a de-\\nsign patent must claim an “ornamental” design, not one\\n“dictated by function.” See, e.g., High Point Design LLC v.\\nBuyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013).\\nWe have recognized, however, that a valid design may con-\\ntain some functional elements. After all, “a design patent’s\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Ordinarily, we review a district court’s determina-\\ntion of whether a patented design is invalid due to func-\\ntionality for clear error. See Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v.\\nCovidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2015). ABPA\\ninvites us to revisit this standard and establish de novo re-\\nview. Given the de novo standard inherent in review of\\nsummary judgment, we do not reach this question.\\n\\f6 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nclaim protects an article of manufacture, which ‘necessarily\\nserves a utilitarian purpose.’” See Sport Dimension, Inc. v.\\nColeman Co., 820 F.3d 1316, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting\\nL.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117,\\n1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). But a design patent may not claim\\na “primarily functional” design. Id. “If [a] particular de-\\nsign is essential to the use of the article, it can not be the\\nsubject of a design patent.” L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123.\\n While “[w]e have not mandated applying any particu-\\nlar test,” certain considerations assist courts in assessing\\nwhether a design is dictated by function. Ethicon, 796 F.3d\\nat 1329. These include:\\n [W]hether the protected design represents the best\\n design; whether alternative designs would ad-\\n versely affect the utility of the specified article;\\n whether there are any concomitant utility patents;\\n whether the advertising touts particular features\\n of the design as having specific utility; and whether\\n there are any elements in the design or an overall\\n appearance clearly not dictated by function.\\nBerry Sterling Corp. v. Pescor Plastics, Inc., 122 F.3d 1452,\\n1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We have often emphasized the pres-\\nence or absence of alternative designs, noting that the ex-\\nistence of “several ways to achieve the function of an article\\nof manufacture,” though not dispositive, increases the like-\\nlihood that a design serves a primarily ornamental pur-\\npose. Id. (quoting L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123); see also\\nNordock, Inc. v. Sys. Inc., 803 F.3d 1344, 1361 (Fed. Cir.\\n2015) (affirming ornamentality where record showed “al-\\nternate designs available achieve the same utilitarian pur-\\npose”), vacated on other grounds, 137 S. Ct. 589 (2016);\\nRosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co., 304 F.3d 1373, 1378\\n(Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[I]f other designs could produce the same\\nor similar functional capabilities, the design of the article\\nin question is likely ornamental, not functional.”).\\n\\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 7\\n\\n\\n\\n A\\n ABPA posits (without record support) that consumers\\nseeking replacement parts prefer hoods and headlamps\\nthat restore the original appearance of their vehicles. It\\nconcludes that there is a functional benefit to designs that\\nare aesthetically compatible with those vehicles. See, e.g.,\\nAppellant’s Br. 8–9 (“The function of the claimed designs\\nincludes their appearance . . . .”). From there, rather than\\narguing that Ford’s designs are functional because they\\nachieve some mechanical or utilitarian goal, ABPA argues\\nthat Ford’s hood and headlamp designs are functional be-\\ncause they aesthetically match the F-150 truck. But ABPA\\ndoes not identify, nor can we find, any design patent case\\nruling aesthetic appeal of this type functional.\\n We hold that, even in this context of a consumer pref-\\nerence for a particular design to match other parts of a\\nwhole, the aesthetic appeal of a design to consumers is in-\\nadequate to render that design functional. As the Supreme\\nCourt acknowledged almost 150 years ago, “giving certain\\nnew and original appearances to a manufactured article\\nmay enhance its salable value, [and] may enlarge the de-\\nmand for it.” Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 525\\n(1871). But regardless of the market advantage conferred\\nby a patented appearance, competitors may not utilize a\\nprotected design during the patent’s life. See id.; see also\\n35 U.S.C. § 289. To hold that designs that derive commer-\\ncial value from their aesthetic appeal are functional and\\nineligible for protection, as ABPA asks, would gut these\\nprinciples. The very “thing . . . for which [the] patent is\\ngiven, is that which gives a peculiar or distinctive appear-\\nance,” its aesthetic. Gorham, 81 U.S. at 525. If customers\\nprefer the “peculiar or distinctive appearance” of Ford’s de-\\nsigns over that of other designs that perform the same me-\\nchanical or utilitarian functions, that is exactly the type of\\nmarket advantage “manifestly contemplate[d]” by Con-\\ngress in the laws authorizing design patents. Id.\\n\\f8 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n B\\n ABPA’s contrary arguments are unpersuasive. It first\\nasks us to borrow the principle of “aesthetic functionality”\\nfrom trademark law. In that context, courts have ex-\\nplained that a party cannot use trademark protection to\\nprevent its competitors from using “important product in-\\ngredient[s],” Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S.\\n159, 170 (1995), or “from making their products as visually\\nentrancing as [its] own,” Pub’ns Int’l, Ltd. v. Landoll, Inc.,\\n164 F.3d 337, 339 (7th Cir. 1998) (Posner, J.) (explaining\\nthat trademark and trade dress protection are unavailable\\n“if consumers derive a value from the fact that a product\\nlooks a certain way that is distinct from the value of know-\\ning at a glance who made it”). In Qualitex, the Supreme\\nCourt permitted a party to trademark a particular color\\nonly after explaining that protection might not be available\\nif the “color serve[d] a significant nontrademark function.”\\nQualitex, 514 U.S. at 170.\\n ABPA acknowledges that no court has applied “aes-\\nthetic functionality” to design patents, but it asks us to be-\\ncome the first. Appellant’s Br. 28–29. We decline. Though\\ntrademarks and design patents have certain similarities,\\nsee id. at 29–30, it does not follow that trademark princi-\\nples apply equally to design patents. Trademarks and de-\\nsign patents serve different purposes and have different\\ngoverning law. Trademarks promote competition by per-\\nmitting a perpetual monopoly over symbols that “distin-\\nguish[] a firm’s goods and identif[y] their source, without\\nserving any other significant function.” Qualitex, 514 U.S.\\nat 166. Trademarks ensure that a particular producer\\nreaps the rewards—and bears the risks—of its products’\\nquality and desirability. See id. at 163–64. It follows that\\na company may not indefinitely inhibit competition by\\ntrademarking features, whether utilitarian or aesthetic,\\n“that either are not associated with a particular producer\\nor that have value to consumers that is independent of\\nidentification.” Pub’ns Int’l, 164 F.3d at 339; see also\\n\\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 9\\n\\n\\n\\nQualitex, 514 U.S. at 164–65 (holding companies may not\\n“inhibit[] legitimate competition” by trademarking desira-\\nble features to “put competitors at a significant non-repu-\\ntation-related disadvantage”). In contrast, design patents\\nexpressly grant to their owners exclusive rights to a partic-\\nular aesthetic for a limited period of time. See Qualitex,\\n514 U.S. at 164; see also U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. The\\nconsiderations that drive the aesthetic functionality doc-\\ntrine of trademark law simply do not apply to design pa-\\ntents.\\n ABPA also attempts to justify its functionality argu-\\nment with reference to our case law, but it misunderstands\\nour precedent. In Best Lock Corp. v. Ilco Unican Corp.,\\n94 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1996), we considered a design pa-\\ntent for a key “blade,” the portion of the key that interacts\\nwith a lock to open or close it. Id. at 1564. The parties\\nagreed that “the key blade must be designed as shown in\\norder to perform its intended function—to fit into its corre-\\nsponding lock’s keyway. An attempt to create a key blade\\nwith a different design would necessarily fail because no\\nalternative blank key blade would fit the corresponding\\nlock.” Id. at 1566. On those facts, we affirmed the district\\ncourt’s finding that the claimed key blade design was dic-\\ntated solely by function, and the design patent was invalid.\\nId. ABPA argues that only Ford’s patented designs aes-\\nthetically “match” the F-150, 2 and attempts to analogize\\nBest Lock to the instant case. But Best Lock turned on the\\nadmitted fact that no alternatively designed blade would\\nmechanically operate the lock—not that the blade and lock\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 ABPA also briefly suggests that insurers require\\nrepair parts to use Ford’s original designs with the F-150\\nbut cites no evidentiary support. ABPA’s own witness ex-\\nplained that insurers simply pay a sum of money for re-\\npairs; they do not dictate whether a repair is even made.\\nJ.A. 1312.\\n\\f10 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nwere aesthetically compatible. Id.; see also Static Control\\nComponents, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 697 F.3d 387, 395,\\n422 (6th Cir. 2012) (holding a printer cartridge design func-\\ntional where “each company’s cartridges will work with\\nonly its brand of printers” and “the design of the printer\\ndictated the exact design of the cartridge”).\\n Best Lock is distinguished for yet another reason. Ford\\nintroduced abundant evidence of alternative headlamp and\\nhood designs that physically fit its trucks. See Auto. Body\\nParts, 293 F. Supp. 3d at 703 (reproducing images);\\nJ.A. 2442–43. ABPA’s own witnesses testified to the exist-\\nence of “performance parts” that have a different “design or\\nshape” than the manufacturer’s parts so that they have\\n“some aesthetic appeal or something like that.” J.A. 940–\\n41; see also J.A. 1312–13 (testifying that customers select\\nperformance parts because “[t]hey want [their vehicles] to\\nlook different”). And ABPA admitted that a “performance\\npart” “will fit the associated vehicle . . . but may differ in\\nappearance from the original part.” J.A. 1330; see also\\nJ.A. 1340 (same). On these facts, Best Lock bears little sim-\\nilarity to this case.\\n Similarly, ABPA urges us to rule that Ford’s designs\\nare not a “matter of concern” to consumers. We have ex-\\nplained that a design is generally not a “matter of concern,”\\nand lacks ornamentality, if it may not be observed or if it\\nis assessed only for functionality. See In re Webb, 916 F.2d\\n1553, 1557–58 (Fed. Cir. 1990). ABPA avers that consum-\\ners assess Ford’s designs only to assess their aesthetic com-\\npatibility with the F-150. But by definition, if a consumer\\nassesses the aesthetic of a design in considering whether to\\npurchase it, the design is a matter of concern. See id. In-\\ndeed, ABPA and its witnesses admitted that customers se-\\nlect replacement parts from among multiple different\\ndesigns based on their preferred aesthetic, further under-\\nmining ABPA’s position. See J.A. 940–41, 1312–13, 1330,\\n1340. And regardless, the district court found that “it is\\nbeyond reasonable debate that the design of an auto-body\\n\\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 11\\n\\n\\n\\npart is important to consumers at least when they are de-\\nciding which car to buy.” Auto. Body Parts, 293 F. Supp. 3d\\nat 701. ABPA fails to explain how that well-supported\\nfinding constitutes error.\\n Finally, ABPA asks this court to rule, as a matter of\\npolicy, that Ford’s design patents may be enforced only in\\nthe initial market for sale of the F-150, and not in the mar-\\nket for replacement components. Appellant’s Br. 36.\\nABPA argues that a market-specific rule is appropriate be-\\ncause customers have different concerns in different con-\\ntexts. It declares that customers care about design in the\\ninitial sales market, but not when they select replacement\\nparts. But ABPA cites no supporting facts. Instead, it ig-\\nnores abundant record evidence regarding performance\\nparts available as replacements for customers who “want\\n[their vehicles] to look different.” J.A. 1312–13. It cites no\\npatent case to support its argument. And it seeks to side-\\nstep our precedent, which asks “whether at some point in\\nthe life of the article an occasion (or occasions) arises when\\nthe appearance of the article becomes a ‘matter of con-\\ncern.’” Webb, 916 F.2d at 1557 (emphasis added). Finding\\nneither legal nor factual support for ABPA’s argument, we\\nreject it. 3 We therefore affirm the district court’s determi-\\nnation that ABPA failed, as a matter of law, to prove Ford’s\\ndesigns functional by clear and convincing evidence. See\\nEthicon, 796 F.3d at 1328 (discussing burden and standard\\nof proof).\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 A bill seeking to create a market-based analysis\\nspecifically for auto-body design patents was introduced in\\na previous Congress but has not become law. See PARTS\\nAct, S. 780, 113th Cong. (2013); J.A. 664. “[I]t is not our\\njob to apply laws that have not yet been written.” See Sony\\nCorp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417,\\n456 (1984).\\n\\f12 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n II\\n We next address ABPA’s contention that Ford’s pa-\\ntents are unenforceable against its members under the re-\\nlated doctrines of exhaustion and repair.\\n A\\n “The franchise which the patent grants, consists alto-\\ngether in the right to exclude every one from making, us-\\ning, or vending the thing patented, without the permission\\nof the patentee.” Bloomer v. McQuewan, 55 U.S. 539, 549\\n(1852). But when the patentee sells his invention, the\\nthing sold “is no longer within the limits of the monopoly.”\\nId.; see also United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265,\\n277–78 (1942). This “well-established” rule, dubbed ex-\\nhaustion, “marks the point where patent rights yield to the\\ncommon law principle against restraints on alienation.”\\nImpression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 137 S. Ct.\\n1523, 1531 (2017). An authorized sale compensates the pa-\\ntentee for his invention. After such a sale, the patentee\\nmay no longer “‘control the use or disposition’ of the prod-\\nuct.” Id. (quoting United States v. Univis Lens Co.,\\n316 U.S. 241, 250 (1942)). And the purchaser may use or\\ndispose of that product without incurring liability for in-\\nfringement. See, e.g., ExcelStor Tech., Inc. v. Papst Licens-\\ning GMBH & Co. KG, 541 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2008)\\n(“patent exhaustion is a defense to patent infringement”).\\n Ford concedes that when it sells an F-150, its patents\\nare exhausted as to the components actually sold as part of\\nthat truck. Oral Arg. at 17:58–18:24, http://oralargu-\\nments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2018-1613.mp3.\\nABPA argues that exhaustion extends further, asserting\\nthat the sale of an F-150 truck totally exhausts any design\\npatents embodied in the truck and permits use of Ford’s\\ndesigns on replacement parts so long as those parts are in-\\ntended for use with Ford’s trucks. See Appellant’s Br. 43–\\n45. But exhaustion attaches only to items sold by, or with\\nthe authorization of, the patentee. See Jazz Photo Corp. v.\\n\\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 13\\n\\n\\n\\nInt’l Trade Comm’n, 264 F.3d 1094, 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2001)\\n(explaining that an authorized sale “‘exhausts’ the pa-\\ntentee’s right to control further sale and use of that article”\\nbut does not permit a “second creation of the patented en-\\ntity” (emphasis added)), overruled on other grounds by Im-\\npression Prod., 137 S. Ct. at 1538; see also Bowman v.\\nMonsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278, 286 (2013) (“The exhaustion\\ndoctrine is limited to the ‘particular item’ sold . . . .”).\\nABPA’s members’ sales are not authorized by Ford; it fol-\\nlows that exhaustion does not protect them. See Helferich\\nPatent Licensing, LLC v. N.Y. Times Co., 778 F.3d 1293,\\n1302 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]he decisions finding exhaus-\\ntion . . . have done so only when . . . an authorized acquirer\\nwas using the same invention by infringing the asserted\\nclaims.” (emphases added)).\\n ABPA asks us to “adapt[]” this rule for design cases.\\nSee Appellant’s Br. 49. But we apply the same rules to de-\\nsign and utility patents whenever possible. See 35 U.S.C.\\n§ 171(b) (“The provisions of this title relating to patents for\\ninventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as oth-\\nerwise provided.”). Accordingly, we have held that princi-\\nples of prosecution history estoppel, inventorship,\\nanticipation, and obviousness apply to both design patents\\nand utility patents. See, e.g., Pac. Coast Marine Wind-\\nshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, 739 F.3d 694, 702\\n(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The same principles of public notice that\\nunderlie prosecution history estoppel apply to design pa-\\ntents as well as utility patents.”); Hoop v. Hoop, 279 F.3d\\n1004, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“We apply the same standard\\nof inventorship to design patents that we require for utility\\npatents.”); Hupp v. Siroflex of Am., Inc., 122 F.3d 1456,\\n1461 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“In determining whether a design\\npatent is invalid based on a description in a printed publi-\\ncation, . . . the factual inquiry is the same as that which de-\\ntermines anticipation by prior publication of the subject\\nmatter of a utility patent . . . .”); In re Borden, 90 F.3d 1570,\\n1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Design patents are subject to the\\n\\f14 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nsame conditions on patentability as utility patents, includ-\\ning the nonobviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 103.”).\\nWe see no persuasive reason to depart from this standard\\nfor the exhaustion doctrine.\\n ABPA points to the Supreme Court’s decision in\\nQuanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617\\n(2008), to assert that we should nevertheless create a de-\\nsign-patent-specific rule for exhaustion. Appellant’s\\nBr. 49. In Quanta, the Court rejected an attempt to exempt\\nmethod claims from exhaustion. See Quanta, 553 U.S.\\nat 628. After reviewing the history and purpose of the doc-\\ntrine, the Court noted that “[o]ur precedents do not differ-\\nentiate transactions involving embodiments of patented\\nmethods or processes from those involving patented appa-\\nratuses or materials.” Id. at 628–29. It therefore held that\\nlike other utility patents, method patents are exhausted by\\nthe authorized sale of an item embodying the claimed in-\\nvention. Id. at 638. And accordingly, it determined that\\nthe sale of a microprocessor embodying a method patent\\nexhausts that patent. See id. It did not, however, hold that\\npurchasers of those microprocessors could make their own,\\nnew microprocessors using the patented invention, as\\nABPA suggests. Far from supporting ABPA’s position,\\nQuanta supports our reluctance to establish special rules\\nfor design patents—our precedents do not differentiate\\ntransactions involving embodiments of patented designs\\nfrom those involving patented processes or methods. See,\\ne.g., Jazz Photo, 264 F.3d at 1110 (“[T]he principle of ex-\\nhaustion applies to the design patents as well as to the util-\\nity patents.”).\\n B\\n ABPA’s right of repair argument is equally unpersua-\\nsive. The right of use transferred to a purchaser by an au-\\nthorized sale “include[s] the right to repair the patented\\narticle.” Kendall Co. v. Progressive Med. Tech., Inc.,\\n85 F.3d 1570, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The right of repair\\n\\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 15\\n\\n\\n\\ndoes not, however, permit a complete reconstruction of a\\npatented device or component. See Helferich, 778 F.3d\\nat 1303–05 (noting purchaser cannot recreate patented\\nproduct); Kendall, 85 F.3d at 1573–74 (explaining that\\nwhile a purchaser may not undertake a “complete ‘recon-\\nstruction’” of the patented device, he may replace “individ-\\nual unpatented components” of the patented article\\n(emphasis added)). And it does not permit a purchaser to\\ninfringe other patents by manufacturing separately pa-\\ntented components of the purchased article. See Aro Mfg.\\nCo. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336, 346\\n(1961) (“[R]eplacement of a spent, unpatented element does\\nnot constitute reconstruction. The decisions of this Court\\nrequire the conclusion that reconstruction of a patented en-\\ntity, comprised of unpatented elements, is limited to such\\na true reconstruction of the entity as to ‘in fact make a new\\narticle’ . . . .” (emphasis added) (quoting United States v.\\nAluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416, 425 (2d Cir. 1945)\\n(Hand, J.))); Helferich, 778 F.3d at 1303–05 (noting prohi-\\nbition on reconstruction).\\n ABPA argues that purchasers of Ford’s F-150 trucks\\nare licensed to repair those trucks using replacement parts\\nthat embody Ford’s hood and headlamp design patents.\\nBut straightforward application of long-standing case law\\ncompels the opposite conclusion. Over 150 years ago, a\\nNew Hampshire court considered facts similar to those of\\nthis case in Aiken v. Manchester Print Works, 1 F. Cas. 245\\n(C.C.D.N.H. 1865). There, the patentee sold a patented\\nknitting machine whose needles wore out on a regular ba-\\nsis. Id. at 245–46. Though the needles were covered by a\\nseparate patent, the accused infringers argued that they\\ncould properly manufacture replacement needles to con-\\ntinue using the knitting machine they had purchased. The\\ncourt disagreed, holding that “the needle is subject to a pa-\\ntent, and in making and using it they have infringed.” Id.\\nat 247. It distinguished an earlier Supreme Court case in\\nwhich a purchaser had been permitted to replace the\\n\\f16 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nknives used in a patented cutting machine, noting “the cut-\\nters and knives, in [Wilson v. Simpson, 50 U.S. 109 (1850)],\\nwere not subject to a patent.” Id. The Supreme Court en-\\ndorsed Aiken’s reasoning in Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany\\nPerforated Wrapping Paper Co., 152 U.S. 425, 435–36\\n(1894), and its reasoning governs here. Ford’s patents\\nclaim “[t]he ornamental design for exterior of vehicle hood,”\\nsee D’299 patent, Claim, and “[t]he ornamental design for\\na vehicle head lamp,” see D’685 patent, Claim. The designs\\nmay be embodied in the hoods and headlamps that form\\npart of the full F-150 truck or in separate hoods and head-\\nlamps. But though a sale of the F-150 truck permits the\\npurchaser to repair the designs as applied to the specific\\nhood and headlamps sold on the truck, the purchaser may\\nnot create new hoods and headlamps using Ford’s designs.\\nLike the needles in Aiken, such new hoods and headlamps\\nare subject to Ford’s design patents, and manufacturing\\nnew copies of those designs constitutes infringement.\\n ABPA attempts to distinguish Aiken and its progeny by\\nasserting that these cases apply only to utility patents.\\nABPA urges us to adopt a new rule that recognizes the\\n“unique nature” of design patents. See Appellant’s Reply\\nBr. 18. In particular, ABPA claims that the statutory lan-\\nguage authorizing design patents dictates such a rule. Un-\\nlike 35 U.S.C. § 101, which authorizes utility patents for a\\n“process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,\\nor any new and useful improvement thereof,” 35 U.S.C.\\n§ 171 permits design patents for a “design for an article of\\nmanufacture.” ABPA argues that because “article of man-\\nufacture,” is a term broad enough to include both a product\\ncomponent and the product itself, see Samsung Elecs. Co.\\nv. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429, 434 (2016), sale of either the\\ncomponent (i.e., the hood or headlamp) or the whole prod-\\nuct (i.e., the F-150) totally exhausts a design patent and\\npermits unlimited repair. See Appellant’s Br. 43–58.\\n We disagree. In our view, the breadth of the term “ar-\\nticle of manufacture” simply means that Ford could\\n\\fAUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC 17\\n\\n\\n\\nproperly have claimed its designs as applied to the entire\\nF-150 or as applied to the hood and headlamp. To deter-\\nmine what repair rights apply, we look to what Ford actu-\\nally claimed. As always, “the name of the game is the\\nclaim.” Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.,\\n632 F.3d 1246, 1255 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Giles S.\\nRich, The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of\\nClaims–American Perspectives, 21 Int’l Rev. Indus. Prop. &\\nCopyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Ford chose to claim de-\\nsigns as applied to portions of particular components, and\\nthe law permits it to do so. See, e.g., Samsung, 137 S. Ct.\\nat 435; Gorham, 81 U.S. at 512. That the auto-body com-\\nponents covered by Ford’s patents may require replace-\\nment does not compel a special rule. Just as the patentee\\nin Aiken could have only claimed the needles in conjunction\\nwith the knitting machine, Ford could have only claimed\\nits design as applied to the whole truck. Unfortunately for\\nABPA, Ford did not do so; the designs for Ford’s hood and\\nheadlamp are covered by distinct patents, and to make and\\nuse those designs without Ford’s authorization is to in-\\nfringe. See Aiken, 1 F. Cas. at 247. 4\\n We thus reject ABPA’s attempts to develop design pa-\\ntent-specific exhaustion and repair rules. 5 Consequently,\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 ABPA asserts that Ford’s purchasers are unaware\\nof the design patents covering the hood and headlamp and\\nsuggests that as a result we should permit their use of the\\npatented designs. Appellant’s Br. 56–57. Even if purchas-\\ners are unaware—and ABPA cites no factual support for\\nthat assertion—direct infringement does not require\\nknowledge of a patent. See Glob.-Tech Appliances, Inc. v.\\nSEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 761 n.2 (2011) (“[A] direct in-\\nfringer’s knowledge or intent is irrelevant.”).\\n 5 As an additional argument for affirmance, Ford as-\\nserts that because ABPA and its members are not them-\\nselves the purchasers of Ford’s trucks, they cannot benefit\\n\\f18 AUTO. BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOB. TECHS., LLC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nwe affirm the district court’s ruling that ABPA has not\\nshown that Ford’s designs for an F-150 hood and headlamp\\nare exhausted when Ford sells an F-150 truck.\\n CONCLUSION\\n Having considered the parties’ remaining arguments\\nand found them unpersuasive, we affirm the district court.\\n AFFIRMED\\n COSTS\\n Costs to Appellee.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nfrom an implied license to repair the trucks. See Appellee’s\\nBr. 43–45. For purposes of this opinion, we do not reach\\nthis issue.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3493,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4639125,"string":"4,639,125"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Sri International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-2223"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"STOLL, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee\\n\\n v.\\n\\n CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,\\n Defendant-Appellant\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2223\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Delaware in No. 1:13-cv-01534-SLR-SRF, Judge\\nSue L. Robinson.\\n ______________________\\n\\n OPINION ISSUED: March 20, 2019\\n OPINION MODIFIED: July 12, 2019 ∗\\n ______________________\\n\\n FRANK SCHERKENBACH, Fish & Richardson, PC, Bos-\\nton, MA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by\\nPROSHANTO MUKHERJI; DAVID MICHAEL HOFFMAN, Austin,\\nTX; HOWARD G. POLLACK, Redwood City, CA; FRANCIS J.\\nALBERT, JOHN WINSTON THORNBURGH, San Diego, CA.\\n\\n\\n\\n ∗ This opinion has been modified and reissued fol-\\nlowing a petition for rehearing filed by Defendant-Appel-\\nlant.\\n\\n2 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and\\nDorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendant-appellant.\\nAlso represented by ANDREW J. DANFORD, LAUREN B.\\nFLETCHER, LOUIS W. TOMPROS.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\\n Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge STOLL.\\n Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge LOURIE.\\nSTOLL, Circuit Judge.\\n This is an appeal from a final judgment in a patent\\ncase. Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) appeals the district\\ncourt’s (1) denial of Cisco’s motion for summary judgment\\nof patent ineligibility under § 101, (2) construction of the\\nclaim term “network traffic data,” (3) grant of summary\\njudgment of no anticipation, and (4) denial of judgment as\\na matter of law of no willful infringement. Cisco also ap-\\npeals the district court’s grant of enhanced damages, attor-\\nneys’ fees, and ongoing royalties.\\n We affirm the district court’s denial of summary judg-\\nment of ineligibility, adopt its construction of “network\\ntraffic data,” and affirm its summary judgment of no antic-\\nipation. We vacate and remand the district court’s denial\\nof judgment as a matter of law of no willful infringement,\\nand therefore vacate and remand the district court’s en-\\nhancement of damages and award of attorneys’ fees. Fi-\\nnally, we affirm the district court’s award of ongoing\\nroyalties on post-verdict sales of products that were actu-\\nally found to infringe or are not colorably different. Accord-\\ningly, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand for\\nfurther proceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 3\\n\\n\\n\\n BACKGROUND\\n I\\n While the interconnectivity of computer networks facil-\\nitates access for authorized users, it also increases a net-\\nwork’s susceptibility to attacks from hackers, malware,\\nand other security threats. Some of these security threats\\ncan only be detected with information from multiple\\nsources. For instance, a hacker may try logging in to sev-\\neral computers or monitors in a network. The number of\\nlogin attempts for each computer may be below the thresh-\\nold to trigger an alert, making it difficult to detect such an\\nattack by looking at only a single monitor location in the\\nnetwork. In an attempt to solve this problem, SRI devel-\\noped the inventions claimed in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,484,203\\nand 6,711,615. The ’615 patent (titled “Network Surveil-\\nlance”) is a continuation of the ’203 patent (titled “Hierar-\\nchical Event Monitoring and Analysis”).\\n II\\n SRI had performed considerable research and develop-\\nment on network intrusion detection prior to filing the pa-\\ntents-in-suit. In fact, SRI’s Event Monitoring Enabling\\nResponses to Anomalous Live Disturbances (“EMERALD”)\\nproject had attracted considerable attention in this field.\\nThe Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research\\nProjects Agency, which helped fund EMERALD, called it a\\n“gem in the world of cyber defense” and “a quantum leap\\nimprovement over” previous technology. J.A. 1272–73\\nat 272:16–17, 273:7–9. In October 1997, SRI presented a\\npaper entitled “EMERALD: Event Monitoring Enabling\\nResponses to Anomalous Live Disturbances”\\n(“EMERALD 1997”) at the 20th National Information Sys-\\ntems Security Conference.\\n EMERALD 1997 is a conceptual overview of the\\nEMERALD system. It describes in detail SRI’s early re-\\nsearch in intrusion detection technology and outlines the\\n\\n4 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ndevelopment of next generation technology for detecting\\nnetwork anomalies. SRI Int’l Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,\\n647 F. Supp. 2d 323, 334 (D. Del. 2009). The parties do not\\ndispute that EMERALD 1997 constitutes prior art under\\n35 U.S.C. § 102(b). EMERALD 1997 is listed as a reference\\non the face of the ’615 patent.\\n III\\n The patents share a nearly identical specification and\\na priority date of November 9, 1998. At the summary judg-\\nment stage, SRI asserted claims 1–4, 14–16, and 18 of the\\n’615 patent and claims 1–4, 12–15, and 17 of the ’203 pa-\\ntent. By the time of trial, SRI had narrowed the asserted\\nclaims to claims 1, 2, 12, and 13 of the ’203 patent and\\nclaims 1, 2, 13, and 14 of the ’615 patent. The jury consid-\\nered only this narrower set of claims.\\n The parties identify different representative claims.\\nCisco proposes claim 1 of the ’203 patent, while SRI pro-\\nposes claim 1 of the ’615 patent. The claims are substan-\\ntially similar, as the minor differences between them are\\nnot material to any issue on appeal. As such, we adopt\\nSRI’s proposal and use ’615 patent claim 1 as the repre-\\nsentative claim. 1 It reads:\\n 1. A computer-automated method of hierarchical\\n event monitoring and analysis within an enterprise\\n network comprising:\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 The minor differences between the two claims are\\nin the detecting clause—claim 1 of the ’615 patent allows\\nfor network traffic data selected from “one or more of” the\\nenumerated categories, and includes two extra categories\\nin its list: “network connection acknowledgements” and\\n“network packets indicative of well-known network-service\\nprotocols.” Compare ’203 patent col. 14 ll. 19–35 (claim 1),\\nwith ’615 patent col. 15 ll. 2–21 (claim 1).\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 5\\n\\n\\n\\n deploying a plurality of network monitors in\\n the enterprise network;\\n detecting, by the network monitors, suspicious\\n network activity based on analysis of network\\n traffic data selected from one or more of the fol-\\n lowing categories: {network packet data trans-\\n fer commands, network packet data transfer\\n errors, network packet data volume, network\\n connection requests, network connection deni-\\n als, error codes included in a network packet,\\n network connection acknowledgements, and\\n network packets indicative of well-known net-\\n work-service protocols};\\n generating, by the monitors, reports of said\\n suspicious activity; and\\n automatically receiving and integrating the re-\\n ports of suspicious activity, by one or more hi-\\n erarchical monitors.\\n’615 patent col. 15 ll. 2–21.\\n After SRI sued Cisco for infringement of the ’615 pa-\\ntent and the ’203 patent, Cisco unsuccessfully moved for\\nsummary judgment on several issues, including that the\\nclaims are ineligible and that the EMERALD 1997 refer-\\nence anticipates the claims. 2 SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 The patents previously survived multiple anticipa-\\ntion challenges based on the EMERALD 1997 reference.\\nThe Patent Office considered EMERALD 1997 during the\\noriginal prosecution and issued the patents over it.\\nJ.A. 32734 ¶ 47; J.A. 32814–15 ¶ 207. In addition, during\\nthe two reexaminations, the Patent Office again considered\\nthe validity of the asserted claims over EMERALD 1997\\nand again found the claims valid. J.A. 32734 ¶ 47. Addi-\\ntionally, in SRI International Inc. v. Internet Security\\n\\n6 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nInc., 179 F. Supp. 3d 339 (D. Del. Apr. 11, 2016) (“Sum-\\nmary Judgment Op.”). The district court denied Cisco’s mo-\\ntions and instead sua sponte granted summary judgment\\nof no anticipation in SRI’s favor. 3 Id. at 369.\\n The court then held a jury trial on infringement, valid-\\nity, and willful infringement of claims 1, 2, 13, and 14 of\\nthe ’615 patent and claims 1, 2, 12, and 13 of the ’203 pa-\\ntent, as well as damages. The jury found that Cisco intru-\\nsion protection system (“IPS”) products, Cisco remote\\nmanagement services, Cisco IPS services, Sourcefire 4 IPS\\nproducts, and Sourcefire professional services directly and\\nindirectly infringed the asserted claims. The jury awarded\\nSRI a 3.5% reasonable royalty for a total of $23,660,000 in\\ncompensatory damages. The jury also found by clear and\\nconvincing evidence that Cisco’s infringement was willful.\\n After post-trial briefing, the district court denied\\nCisco’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willfulness. SRI\\n\\n\\nSystems, Inc., a jury found the patents not anticipated by\\nEMERALD 1997. 647 F. Supp. 2d at 350. The district\\ncourt denied JMOL, concluding that the verdict was sup-\\nported by expert testimony that EMERALD 1997 failed to\\ndisclose the claim limitation at issue. Id. We affirmed\\nwithout opinion. SRI Int’l Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,\\n401 F. App’x 530 (Fed. Cir. 2010).\\n 3 The parties disputed only whether\\nEMERALD 1997 discloses detection of any of the network\\ntraffic data categories listed in claim 1 of the ’203 and\\n’615 patents and whether EMERALD 1997 is enabled.\\nOne of the claimed categories of network traffic is “network\\nconnection requests,” which Cisco asserts is disclosed by\\nEMERALD 1997.\\n 4 “Sourcefire” is a network security company that\\nCisco acquired in 2013. J.A. 2467–68. Cisco now markets\\nnetwork security products and services under the\\nSourcefire name.\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 7\\n\\n\\n\\nInt’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 254 F. Supp. 3d 680, 717\\n(D. Del. 2017) (“Post-Trial Motions Op.”). Based on the\\nwillfulness verdict, the district court determined that\\n“some enhancement is appropriate given Cisco’s litigation\\nconduct,” the “fact that Cisco lost on all issues during sum-\\nmary judgment,” and “its apparent disdain for SRI and its\\nbusiness model.” Id. at 723. The court then doubled the\\ndamages award. It also granted SRI’s motion for attorneys’\\nfees, compulsory license, and prejudgment interest.\\n Cisco appeals the district court’s claim construction\\nand denial of summary judgment of ineligibility, 5 as well\\nas its grant of summary judgment of no anticipation, en-\\nhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and ongoing royalties.\\nWe have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).\\n DISCUSSION\\n I\\n We review de novo whether a claim is drawn to patent-\\neligible subject matter. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d\\n1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Intellectual Ventures I\\nLLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1338\\n(Fed. Cir. 2017)). Section 101 defines patent-eligible\\n\\n\\n 5 We may review this denial of summary judgment\\nbecause “a denial of a motion for summary judgment may\\nbe appealed, even after a final judgment at trial, if the mo-\\ntion involved a purely legal question and the factual dis-\\nputes resolved at trial do not affect the resolution of that\\nlegal question.” United Techs. Corp. v. Chromalloy Gas\\nTurbine Corp., 189 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing\\nWolfgang v. Mid-Am. Motorsports, Inc., 111 F.3d 1515,\\n1521 (10th Cir. 1997); Rekhi v. Wildwood Indus., Inc.,\\n61 F.3d 1313, 1318 (7th Cir. 1995)). Neither party con-\\ntends that fact issues arise in the patent-eligibility analysis\\nin this case. Therefore, we may review the purely legal\\nquestion of patent eligibility.\\n\\n8 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nsubject matter as “any new and useful process, machine,\\nmanufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and\\nuseful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of na-\\nture, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas, however, are\\nnot patentable. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prome-\\ntheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70–71 (2012) (citing Dia-\\nmond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)).\\n To determine whether a patent claims ineligible sub-\\nject matter, the Supreme Court has established a two-step\\nframework. First, we must determine whether the claims\\nat issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept such as\\nan abstract idea. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.\\n208, 217 (2014). Second, if the claims are directed to an\\nabstract idea, we must “consider the elements of each claim\\nboth individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to deter-\\nmine whether the additional elements ‘transform the na-\\nture of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id.\\n(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79). To transform an abstract\\nidea into a patent-eligible application, the claims must do\\n“more than simply stat[e] the abstract idea while adding\\nthe words ‘apply it.’” Id. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.\\nat 72 (internal alterations omitted)).\\n We resolve the eligibility issue at Alice step one and\\nconclude that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea.\\nSee Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337\\n(Fed. Cir. 2016). The district court concluded that the\\nclaims are more complex than merely reciting the perfor-\\nmance of a known business practice on the Internet and are\\nbetter understood as being necessarily rooted in computer\\ntechnology in order to solve a specific problem in the realm\\nof computer networks. Summary Judgment Op.,\\n179 F. Supp. 3d at 353–54 (citing ’203 patent col. 1 ll. 37–\\n40; DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,\\n1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). We agree. The claims are directed\\nto using a specific technique—using a plurality of network\\nmonitors that each analyze specific types of data on the\\nnetwork and integrating reports from the monitors—to\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 9\\n\\n\\n\\nsolve a technological problem arising in computer net-\\nworks: identifying hackers or potential intruders into the\\nnetwork.\\n Contrary to Cisco’s assertion, the claims are not di-\\nrected to just analyzing data from multiple sources to de-\\ntect suspicious activity. Instead, the claims are directed to\\nan improvement in computer network technology. Indeed,\\nrepresentative claim 1 recites using network monitors to\\ndetect suspicious network activity based on analysis of net-\\nwork traffic data, generating reports of that suspicious ac-\\ntivity, and integrating those reports using hierarchical\\nmonitors. ’615 patent col. 15 ll. 2–21. The “focus of the\\nclaims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer\\ncapabilities”—that is, providing a network defense system\\nthat monitors network traffic in real-time to automatically\\ndetect large-scale attacks. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36.\\n The specification bolsters our conclusion that the\\nclaims are directed to a technological solution to a techno-\\nlogical problem. The specification explains that, while\\ncomputer networks “offer users ease and efficiency in ex-\\nchanging information,” ’615 patent col. 1 ll. 28–29, “the\\nvery interoperability and sophisticated integration of tech-\\nnology that make networks such valuable assets also make\\nthem vulnerable to attack, and make dependence on net-\\nworks a potential liability.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 36–39. The\\nspecification further teaches that, in conventional net-\\nworks, seemingly localized triggering events can have glob-\\nally disastrous effects on widely distributed systems—like\\nthe 1980 ARPAnet collapse and the 1990 AT&T collapse.\\nSee id. at col. 1 ll. 43–47. The specification explains that\\nthe claimed invention is directed to solving these weak-\\nnesses in conventional networks and provides “a frame-\\nwork for the recognition of more global threats to\\ninterdomain connectivity, including coordinated attempts\\nto infiltrate or destroy connectivity across an entire net-\\nwork enterprise.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 44–48.\\n\\n10 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Cisco argues that the claims are directed to an abstract\\nidea for three primary reasons. First, Cisco argues that the\\nclaims are analogous to those in Electric Power Group, LLC\\nv. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and are\\nsimply directed to generic steps required to collect and an-\\nalyze data. We disagree. The Electric Power claims were\\ndrawn to using computers as tools to solve a power grid\\nproblem, rather than improving the functionality of com-\\nputers and computer networks themselves. Id. at 1354.\\nWe conclude that the claims are more like the patent-eligi-\\nble claims in DDR Holdings. In DDR, we emphasized that\\nthe claims were directed to more than an abstract idea that\\nmerely required a “computer network operating in its nor-\\nmal, expected manner.” 773 F.3d at 1258. Here, the claims\\nactually prevent the normal, expected operation of a con-\\nventional computer network. Like the claims in DDR, the\\nclaimed technology “overrides the routine and conventional\\nsequence of events” by detecting suspicious network activ-\\nity, generating reports of suspicious activity, and receiving\\nand integrating the reports using one or more hierarchical\\nmonitors. Id.\\n Second, Cisco argues that the invention does not in-\\nvolve “an improvement to computer functionality itself.”\\nEnfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. In Alice, the Supreme Court ad-\\nvised that claims directed to independently abstract ideas\\nthat use computers as tools are still abstract. 573 U.S.\\nat 222–23. However, the claims here are not directed to\\nusing a computer as a tool—that is, automating a conven-\\ntional idea on a computer. Rather, the representative\\nclaim improves the technical functioning of the computer\\nand computer networks by reciting a specific technique for\\nimproving computer network security.\\n Cisco also submits that the asserted claims are so gen-\\neral that they encompass steps that people can “go through\\nin their minds,” allegedly confirming that they are directed\\nto an abstract concept. Appellant Br. 27–28 (citing Capital\\nOne, 850 F.3d at 1340; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 11\\n\\n\\n\\nSymantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Cy-\\nberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,\\n1371 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). We disagree. This is not the type\\nof human activity that § 101 is meant to exclude. Indeed,\\nwe tend to agree with SRI that the human mind is not\\nequipped to detect suspicious activity by using network\\nmonitors and analyzing network packets as recited by the\\nclaims.\\n Because we conclude that the claims are not directed\\nto an abstract idea under step one of the Alice analysis, we\\nneed not reach step two. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339. Ac-\\ncordingly, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment\\nthat the claims are patent-eligible.\\n II\\n A district court’s claim construction based solely on in-\\ntrinsic evidence is a legal question that we review de novo.\\nSee Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831,\\n841 (2015). Claim construction seeks to ascribe the “ordi-\\nnary and customary meaning” to claim terms as a person\\nof ordinary skill in the art would have understood them at\\nthe time of invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d\\n1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics\\nCorp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.\\n1996)). “[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guid-\\nance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Id.\\nat 1314. In addition, “the person of ordinary skill in the art\\nis deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of\\nthe particular claim in which the disputed term appears,\\nbut in the context of the entire patent, including the speci-\\nfication.” Id. at 1313.\\n The district court construed “[n]etwork traffic data” to\\nmean “data obtained from direct examination of network\\npackets.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Dell Inc., No. CV13-1534-SLR,\\n2015 WL 2265756, at *1–2 (D. Del. May 14, 2015). After\\nreviewing the parties’ pleadings on summary judgment,\\nthe district court determined that its construction would\\n\\n12 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nbenefit from clarification. The district court explained that\\n“[t]o say that the data ‘is obtained from direct examination\\nof network packets’ means to differentiate the original\\nsource of the data, not how or where the data is ana-\\nlyzed. . . . The fact that the data may be stored before anal-\\nysis is performed on the data does not detract from its\\nlineage.” Summary Judgment Op., 179 F. Supp. 3d at 363.\\nThe district court explicitly rejected the opinion of Cisco’s\\nexpert, Dr. Clark, that the court’s claim construction\\nshould require that the analysis of data obtained from net-\\nwork packets take place without any further manipulation\\nwhatsoever. Id.\\n On appeal, Cisco offers a more nuanced construction,\\nasserting that term should instead be construed as “detect-\\ning suspicious network activity based on ‘direct examina-\\ntion of network packets,’ where such ‘direct examination’\\ndoes not include merely examining data that has been ob-\\ntained, generated, or gleaned from network packets.” Ap-\\npellant Br. 42. According to Cisco, based on SRI’s express\\nprosecution disclaimer during reexamination, the claims\\nrequire detecting suspicious activity based on “direct exam-\\nination” of network packets, not data “generated” or\\n“gleaned” from packets. Cisco would thus construe the\\nterm to exclude a process that decodes the network packet.\\n We conclude that Cisco’s proposed construction goes\\ntoo far in limiting the amount of preprocessing encom-\\npassed by the claim. The specification shows that prepro-\\ncessing is a contemplated and expected part of the claimed\\ninvention. Indeed, the specification specifically mentions\\ndifferent forms of preprocessing network packets prior to\\nexamination, including decryption (’615 patent col. 3\\nll. 61–63), parsing (id. at col. 8 ll. 10–12), and decoding (id.\\nat col. 8 ll. 7–9).\\n Cisco’s argument that SRI disclaimed preprocessing\\nduring reexamination of its patents is also not persuasive.\\nTo invoke argument-based estoppel, “the prosecution\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 13\\n\\n\\n\\nhistory must evince a ‘clear and unmistakable surrender’”\\nof this kind of preprocessing. Deering Precision Instru-\\nments v. Vector Distrib. Sys., 347 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir.\\n2003) (quoting Eagle Comtronics, Inc. v. Arrow Commc’n\\nLabs., Inc., 305 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also\\nKrippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir.\\n2012) (applying prosecution history disclaimer from reex-\\namination proceedings). Here, SRI’s statements during\\nreexamination reflect that SRI drew the line between what\\ndoes and does not comprise “direct examination” by exclud-\\ning information derived from network packet data (for ex-\\nample, network traffic measures and network traffic\\nstatistics). At the same time, SRI explained that “direct\\nexamination” includes the data from which the network\\ntraffic measures and network traffic statistics are derived\\n(that is, the data in the network packets). For example,\\nSRI explained that the specification:\\n [D]emonstrates that the term “network traffic\\n data” requires information obtained by direct\\n packet examination by using the distinctly differ-\\n ent terms “network traffic measures” and “network\\n traffic statistics” when discussing information de-\\n rived from network traffic observation, as com-\\n pared to the data from which the measures and\\n statistics are derived.\\nBrief for the Patentee on Appeal at 7, In re Porras, Reexam\\nNo. 90/008,125 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 14, 2010) (citing ’203 patent\\ncol. 4 ll. 55–60 (discussing “network traffic statistics”) and\\ncol. 5 ll. 28–30 (discussing “network traffic measures”)).\\n We read SRI’s statements during reexamination as\\nsimply explaining that “network traffic statistics,” such as\\nnumber of packets and number of kilobytes transferred,\\nare statistics derived from the network packet data—not\\nthe underlying data itself. SRI did not argue that the ac-\\ntual data underlying the measures and statistics—the data\\nin the network packets—could not be subject to direct\\n\\n14 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nexamination. Nor did SRI take the position that “direct ex-\\namination” must take place before any or all processing.\\nSRI did not mention processing at all during reexamina-\\ntion. Moreover, as the specification makes clear, the sys-\\ntem may need to decrypt, parse, or decode the data\\npackets—all forms of preprocessing—in order to directly\\nexamine the network packet data underlying the network\\ntraffic statistics.\\n We hold that SRI’s statements in the prosecution his-\\ntory do not invoke a clear and unmistakable surrender of\\nall preprocessing, including decryption, decoding, and\\nparsing. Accordingly, we agree with the district court’s\\nconstruction of “network traffic data” to mean “data ob-\\ntained from direct examination of network packets.”\\n III\\n We also hold that the district court did not err in grant-\\ning summary judgment that the asserted claims are not an-\\nticipated by SRI’s own EMERALD 1997 reference. We\\nreview the district court’s summary judgment of no antici-\\npation under regional circuit law. See MAG Aerospace In-\\ndus., Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 816 F.3d 1374, 1376\\n(Fed. Cir. 2016). The Third Circuit reviews a grant of sum-\\nmary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the\\ndistrict court. See Gonzalez v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Homeland\\nSec., 678 F.3d 254, 257 (3d Cir. 2012). Summary judgment\\nis appropriate when, drawing all justifiable inferences in\\nthe nonmovant’s favor, there exists no genuine issue of ma-\\nterial fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a mat-\\nter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty\\nLobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Anticipation re-\\nquires that a single prior art reference disclose each and\\nevery limitation of the claimed invention, either expressly\\nor inherently. See Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.,\\n814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).\\n EMERALD 1997 discloses a tool for tracking malicious\\nactivity across large networks. The question before us is\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 15\\n\\n\\n\\nwhether the district court erred in concluding on summary\\njudgment that EMERALD 1997 does not disclose detection\\nof any of the network traffic data categories listed in\\nclaim 1 of the ’203 and ’615 patents. The Patent Office con-\\nsidered EMERALD 1997 during the original examination\\nof the ’615 patent, and the patentability of the claims over\\nthe reference was confirmed in multiple reexamination and\\nlitigation proceedings. Indeed, during reexamination, the\\nPatent Office accepted SRI’s argument that the claim lim-\\nitation requires detecting suspicious activity based on “di-\\nrect examination” of network packets to distinguish\\nEMERALD 1997. J.A. 26402 (“[T]he closest prior art of\\nrecord, Emerald 1997, fails to teach direct examination of\\npacket data.”); J.A. 27101 (same).\\n EMERALD 1997 describes detecting a DNS/NFS at-\\ntack in “real-time.” J.A. 5004. To achieve this,\\nEMERALD 1997 explains:\\n The subscription list field is an important facility\\n for gaining visibility into malicious or anomalous\\n activity outside the immediate environment of an\\n EMERALD monitor. The most obvious examples\\n where relationships are important involve interde-\\n pendencies among network services that make lo-\\n cal policy decisions. Consider, for example, the\\n interdependencies between access checks per-\\n formed during network file system [“NFS”] mount-\\n ing and the IP mapping of the DNS service. An\\n unexpected mount monitored by the network file\\n system service may be responded to differently if\\n the DNS monitor informs the network file system\\n monitor of suspicious updates to the mount re-\\n quester’s DNS mapping.\\nJ.A. 5008. EMERALD 1997 further explains that:\\n Above the service layer, signature engines scan the\\n aggregate of intrusion reports from service moni-\\n tors in an attempt to detect more global\\n\\n16 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n coordinated attack scenarios or scenarios that ex-\\n ploit interdependencies among network services.\\n The DNS/NFS attack discussed [above] is one such\\n example of an aggregate attack scenario.\\nJ.A. 5010.\\n Cisco’s expert submitted a report concluding that a per-\\nson of ordinary skill in the art would understand from this\\ndisclosure that “monitoring specific network services, such\\nas HTTP, FTP, network file systems, finger, Kerberos, and\\nSNMP would require detecting and analyzing packets in-\\ndicative of those well-known network service protocols, one\\nof the enumerated categories in claim 1 of the ’615 patent.”\\nJ.A. 30347 (emphasis added). During deposition, however,\\nCisco’s expert retreated from this position, admitting that\\na person of ordinary skill reading EMERALD 1997 would\\nhave understood that it was not necessary to directly ex-\\namine the packets, although that would be “one very good\\nway” to prevent attacks. J.A. 50040 at 159:12–21.\\n On this record, we conclude that summary judgment\\nwas appropriate. EMERALD 1997 does not expressly dis-\\nclose directly examining network packets as required by\\nthe claims—especially not to obtain data about network\\nconnection requests. Nor does Cisco’s expert testimony cre-\\nate a genuine issue of fact on this issue. Rather, we agree\\nwith the district court that Cisco’s expert’s testimony is\\nboth inconsistent and “based on [] multiple layers of suppo-\\nsition.” Summary Judgment Op., 179 F. Supp. 3d at 358.\\nBecause the evidence does not support express or inherent\\ndisclosure of direct examination of packet data, we con-\\nclude that the district court did not err in holding that\\nthere was no genuine issue of fact regarding whether\\nEMERALD 1997 disclosed analyzing the specific enumer-\\nated types of network traffic data recited in the claims.\\n Cisco next argues that the district court erred by grant-\\ning summary judgment for SRI sua sponte despite SRI’s\\nfailure to move for such relief. We disagree. Under Third\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 17\\n\\n\\n\\nCircuit law, a district court may properly enter summary\\njudgment sua sponte “so long as the losing party was on\\nnotice that she had to come forward with all of her evi-\\ndence.” Gibson v. Mayor & Council of City of Wilmington,\\n355 F.3d 215, 222 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Celotex Corp. v.\\nCatrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986)). By filing its own motion\\nfor summary judgment, Cisco was on notice that anticipa-\\ntion was before the court, and Cisco had the opportunity to\\nput forth its best evidence. Additionally, SRI did argue, in\\nopposition to Cisco’s summary judgment motion, that the\\ndistrict court should outright reject Cisco’s assertion of in-\\nvalidity. J.A. 31650 (“Cisco’s assertion of invalidity should\\nbe rejected . . . .”). Indeed, SRI expressly took the position\\nthat EMERALD 1997 “does not anticipate any claim of the\\n’203 or ’615 patents.” J.A. 31678. Thus, any notice require-\\nment was satisfied because Cisco itself indicated that the\\nissue was ripe for summary adjudication and SRI took the\\nposition that the claims were not anticipated. Accordingly,\\nwe see no error in the sua sponte nature of the district\\ncourt’s order and we affirm the summary judgment of no\\nanticipation.\\n IV\\n Cisco also appeals the district court’s denial of JMOL\\nthat it did not willfully infringe the asserted patents be-\\ncause the jury’s willfulness finding is not supported by sub-\\nstantial evidence. We agree that the jury’s finding that\\nCisco willfully infringed the patents-in-suit prior to receiv-\\ning notice thereof is not supported by substantial evidence\\nand therefore vacate and remand.\\n We review decisions on motions for JMOL under the\\nlaw of the regional circuit. Energy Transp. Grp. Inc. v. Wil-\\nliam Demant Holding A/S, 697 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir.\\n2012). The Third Circuit reviews district court decisions\\non such motions de novo. Acumed LLC v. Adv. Surgical\\nServs., Inc., 561 F.3d 199, 211 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Mon-\\nteiro v. City of Elizabeth, 436 F.3d 397, 404 (3d Cir. 2006)).\\n\\n18 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nIn the Third Circuit, a “court may grant a judgment as a\\nmatter of law contrary to the verdict only if ‘the record is\\ncritically deficient of the minimum quantum of evidence’ to\\nsustain the verdict.” Id. (citing Gomez v. Allegheny Health\\nServs., Inc., 71 F.3d 1079, 1083 (3d Cir. 1995)). The court\\nshould grant JMOL “sparingly” and “only if, viewing the\\nevidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and\\ngiving it the advantage of every fair and reasonable infer-\\nence, there is insufficient evidence from which a jury rea-\\nsonably could find liability.” Marra v. Phila. Hous. Auth.,\\n497 F.3d 286, 300 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Moyer v. United\\nDominion Indus., Inc., 473 F.3d 532, 545 n.8 (3d Cir.\\n2007)).\\n As the Supreme Court stated in Halo, “[t]he sort of con-\\nduct warranting enhanced damages has been variously de-\\nscribed in our cases as willful, wanton, malicious, bad-\\nfaith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or—in-\\ndeed—characteristic of a pirate.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse\\nElecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1932 (2016). While district\\ncourts have discretion in deciding whether or not behavior\\nrises to that standard, such findings “are generally re-\\nserved for egregious cases of culpable behavior.” Id. In-\\ndeed, as Justice Breyer emphasized in his concurrence, it\\nis the circumstances that transform simple “intentional or\\nknowing” infringement into egregious, sanctionable behav-\\nior, and that makes all the difference. Id. at 1936 (Breyer,\\nJ., concurring). A patentee need only show by a preponder-\\nance of the evidence the facts that support a finding of will-\\nful infringement. Id. at 1934.\\n In denying Cisco’s motion for JMOL on willfulness, the\\ndistrict court concluded that the jury’s willfulness determi-\\nnation was supported by two evidentiary bases. First, the\\ncourt identified evidence that “key Cisco employees did not\\nread the patents-in-suit until their depositions.” Post-Trial\\nMotions Op., 254 F. Supp. 3d at 717. Second, the court\\nidentified evidence that Cisco designed the products and\\nservices in an infringing manner and that Cisco instructed\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 19\\n\\n\\n\\nits customers to use the products and services in an infring-\\ning manner. Based on these two facts, the district court\\ndenied Cisco’s renewed motion for JMOL on willfulness,\\nstating that “[v]iewing the record in the light most favora-\\nble to SRI, substantial evidence supports the jury’s subjec-\\ntive willfulness verdict.” Id.\\n On appeal, SRI identifies additional evidence that pur-\\nportedly supports the jury’s willfulness verdict. Specifi-\\ncally, SRI presented evidence that Cisco expressed interest\\nin the patented technology and met with SRI’s inventor in\\n2000 before developing its infringing products. J.A. 1484–\\n86; J.A. 5027. Additionally, SRI submitted evidence that\\nCisco received a notice letter from SRI’s licensing consult-\\nant on May 8, 2012, informing Cisco of the asserted patents\\n(a year before SRI filed the complaint). Finally, like the\\ndistrict court, SRI makes much of the fact that “key engi-\\nneers” did not look at SRI’s patents until SRI took their\\ndepositions during this litigation. In particular, Cisco en-\\ngineers Martin Roesch and James Kasper did not look at\\nthe patent until their depositions in 2015.\\n Even accepting this evidence as true and weighing all\\ninferences in SRI’s favor, we conclude that the record is in-\\nsufficient to establish that Cisco’s conduct rose to the level\\nof wanton, malicious, and bad-faith behavior required for\\nwillful infringement. First, it is undisputed that the Cisco\\nemployees who did not read the patents-in-suit until their\\ndepositions were engineers without legal training. Given\\nCisco’s size and resources, it was unremarkable that the\\nengineers—as opposed to Cisco’s in-house or outside coun-\\nsel—did not analyze the patents-in-suit themselves. The\\nother rationale offered by the district court—that Cisco de-\\nsigned the products and services in an infringing manner\\nand that Cisco instructed its customers to use the products\\nand services in an infringing manner—is nothing more\\nthan proof that Cisco directly infringed and induced others\\nto infringe the patents-in-suit.\\n\\n20 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n It is undisputed that Cisco did not know of SRI’s patent\\nuntil May 8, 2012, when SRI sent its notice letter to Cisco.\\nOral Arg. at 23:46, available at http://oralarguments.cafc.\\nuscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2017-2223.mp3. It is also un-\\ndisputed that this notice letter was sent years after Cisco\\nindependently developed the accused systems and first sold\\nthem in 2005 (Cisco) and 2007 (Sourcefire). As SRI admits,\\nthe patents had not issued when the parties met in\\nMay 2000. Indeed, the patent application for the parent\\n’203 patent was not even filed until several months after\\nthe parties met. Thus, Cisco could not have been aware of\\nthe patent application.\\n While the jury heard evidence that Cisco was aware of\\nthe patents in May 2012, before filing of the lawsuit, we do\\nnot see how the record supports a willfulness finding going\\nback to 2000. As the Supreme Court recently observed,\\n“culpability is generally measured against the knowledge\\nof the actor at the time of the challenged conduct.” Halo,\\n136 S. Ct. at 1933. Similarly, Cisco’s allegedly aggressive\\nlitigation tactics cannot support a finding of willful in-\\nfringement going back to 2000, especially when the litiga-\\ntion did not start until 2012. Finally, Cisco’s decision not\\nto seek an advice-of-counsel defense is legally irrelevant\\nunder 35 U.S.C. § 298.\\n Viewing the record in the light most favorable to SRI,\\nthe jury’s verdict of willful infringement before May 8, 2012\\nis not supported by substantial evidence. Given the gen-\\neral verdict form, we presume the jury also found that\\nCisco willfully infringed after May 8, 2012. When review-\\ning a denial of JMOL, “where there is a black box jury ver-\\ndict, as is the case here, we presume the jury resolved\\nunderlying factual disputes in favor of the verdict winner\\nand leave those presumed findings undisturbed if sup-\\nported by substantial evidence.” Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bom-\\nbardier Recreational Prods. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1358\\n(Fed. Cir. 2017), (citing WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d\\n1317, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 143\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 21\\n\\n\\n\\n(2018). We leave it to the district court to decide in the first\\ninstance whether the jury’s presumed finding of willful in-\\nfringement after May 8, 2012 is supported by substantial\\nevidence. 6 In so doing, the court should bear in mind the\\nstandard for willful infringement, as well as the above\\nanalysis regarding SRI’s evidence of willfulness. Accord-\\ningly, we vacate and remand the district court’s denial of\\nCisco’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willful infringe-\\nment.\\n Cisco also argues that the district court abused its dis-\\ncretion by doubling damages. Enhanced damages under\\n§ 284 are predicated on a finding of willful infringement.\\nBecause we conclude that the jury’s finding of willfulness\\nbefore 2012 was not supported by substantial evidence, we\\ndo not reach the propriety of the district court’s award of\\nenhanced damages. Instead, we vacate the award of en-\\nhanced damages and remand for further consideration\\nalong with willfulness.\\n V\\n We next turn to the district court’s award of attorneys’\\nfees under § 285, which we vacate and remand for further\\nconsideration. Under § 285, a “court in exceptional cases\\nmay award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing\\n\\n\\n 6 We recognize that, ideally, it should not fall to the\\ndistrict court to determine when, if ever, willful infringe-\\nment began through the mechanism of JMOL. Rather, the\\nquestion of when willful infringement began is a fact issue\\nthat would have been best presented to the jury in a special\\nverdict form with appropriate jury instructions. Better yet,\\nperhaps SRI could have recognized the shortcomings in its\\ncase and presented a more limited case of willful infringe-\\nment from 2012 onwards. Or perhaps Cisco could have\\nfiled a motion for summary judgment of no willful infringe-\\nment prior to May 8, 2012.\\n\\n22 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nparty.” An “exceptional” case under § 285 is “one that\\nstands out from others with respect to the substantive\\nstrength of a party’s litigating position (considering both\\nthe governing law and the facts of the case) or the unrea-\\nsonable manner in which the case was litigated.” Octane\\nFitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545,\\n554 (2014). The party seeking fees must prove that the\\ncase is exceptional by a preponderance of the evidence, and\\nthe district court makes the exceptional case determination\\non a case-by-case basis considering the totality of the cir-\\ncumstances. See id. at 554, 557.\\n We review a district court’s grant or denial of attorneys’\\nfees for an abuse of discretion, which is a highly deferential\\nstandard of review. Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt.\\nSys., Inc., 572 U.S. 559, 564 (2014); Bayer CropScience AG\\nv. Dow AgroSciences LLC, 851 F.3d 1302, 1306 (Fed. Cir.\\n2017) (citing Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Quickturn Design\\nSys., Inc., 150 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). To meet\\nthe abuse-of-discretion standard, the appellant must show\\nthat the district court made “a clear error of judgment in\\nweighing relevant factors or in basing its decision on an er-\\nror of law or on clearly erroneous factual findings.” Bayer,\\n851 F.3d at 1306 (quoting Mentor Graphics, 150 F.3d\\nat 1377); see also Highmark, 572 U.S. at 563 n.2.\\n We see no such error in the district court’s determina-\\ntion that this was an exceptional case. The district court\\nfound:\\n There can be no doubt from even a cursory review\\n of the record that Cisco pursued litigation about as\\n aggressively as the court has seen in its judicial ex-\\n perience. While defending a client aggressively is\\n understandable, if not laudable, in the case at bar,\\n Cisco crossed the line in several regards.\\nPost-Trial Motions Op., 254 F. Supp. 3d at 722.\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 23\\n\\n\\n\\n The district court further explained that “Cisco’s litiga-\\ntion strategies in the case at bar created a substantial\\namount of work for both SRI and the court, much of which\\nwork was needlessly repetitive or irrelevant or frivolous.”\\nId. at 723 (footnotes omitted). Indeed, the district court in-\\nventoried Cisco’s aggressive tactics, including maintaining\\nnineteen invalidity theories until the eve of trial but only\\npresenting two at trial and pursuing defenses at trial that\\nwere contrary to the court’s rulings or Cisco’s internal doc-\\numents. Id. at 722. Nevertheless, the district court relied\\nin part on the fact that the jury found that Cisco’s infringe-\\nment was willful in its determination to exercise its discre-\\ntion pursuant to § 285 to award SRI its attorneys’ fees and\\ncosts. Id. at 723. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s\\naward of attorneys’ fees and remand for further considera-\\ntion along with willfulness.\\n We take no issue with the district court’s award of at-\\ntorneys’ fees at the attorneys’ billing rates without adjust-\\ning them to Delaware rates. At the same time, however,\\nthe district court erred in granting all of SRI’s fees. Sec-\\ntion 285 permits a prevailing party to recover reasonable\\nattorneys’ fees, but not fees for hours expended by counsel\\nthat were “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unneces-\\nsary.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). We\\naccordingly conclude that the district court should have re-\\nduced SRI’s total hours to eliminate clear mistakes. For\\nexample, one billing entry reads “DON’T RELEASE,\\nCLIENT MATTER NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.”\\nJ.A. 32384. Accordingly, should the district court award\\nattorneys’ fees on remand, it must remove attorney hours\\nclearly included by mistake in its calculation of reasonable\\nattorneys’ fees.\\n VI\\n We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s\\ngrant of an ongoing royalty. Whitserve, LLC v. Comput.\\nPackages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10, 35 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, the\\n\\n24 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ndistrict court did not abuse its discretion in awarding “a\\n3.5% compulsory license for all post-verdict sales.” Post-\\nTrial Motions Op., 254 F. Supp. 3d at 724. The district\\ncourt’s ongoing royalty rate equals the rate found by the\\njury and the base is limited to the “accused products and\\nservices.” J.A. 182.\\n On appeal, Cisco argues that the district court abused\\nits discretion in awarding the 3.5% ongoing royalty on “all\\npost-verdict sales” without considering Cisco’s design-\\narounds. According to Cisco, the court was obligated to as-\\nsess whether Cisco’s redesigned products and services were\\nmore than colorably different from those products and ser-\\nvices adjudicated at trial, and if not, whether those rede-\\nsigned products and services infringe. To this end, Cisco\\nmoved to supplement its post-trial briefing with declara-\\ntions describing its redesign efforts. Cisco argues that the\\ndistrict court abused its discretion by denying its motion to\\nsupplement. 7 We disagree. The district court properly ex-\\nercised its discretion in denying Cisco’s motion to supple-\\nment the record regarding alleged post-verdict design-\\naround activity. Cisco did not redesign its products until\\nafter trial, and Cisco did not file its motion to supplement\\nuntil after completion of post-trial briefing. Given the\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 Finally, Cisco argues that, in the same order in\\nwhich the court stated that “[t]here are no post-verdict roy-\\nalties,” the court awarded a post-verdict royalty—an inter-\\nnal inconsistency. J.A. 175. We do not ascribe weight to\\nthe apparent clerical error creating the inconsistency. The\\ndistrict court’s final judgment order is clear that “Cisco\\nshall pay a 3.5% compulsory license on all post-verdict\\nsales of the accused products and services.” J.A. 182. To\\nthe extent that clear statement conflicts with the single\\nsentence in the memorandum opinion, we think the court\\nmade its intentions clear in its final judgment and we see\\nno error by the district court.\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 25\\n\\n\\n\\nstage of the proceedings and SRI’s opposition, the trial\\ncourt acted within its discretion when denying Cisco’s mo-\\ntion to supplement.\\n To the extent the district court’s order is unclear—and\\nwe think it is not—we reconfirm that the ongoing royalty\\non post-verdict sales is limited to products that were actu-\\nally found to infringe and products that are not colorably\\ndifferent. We discern no error in the district court’s deter-\\nmination that Cisco’s submissions were untimely. Never-\\ntheless, we acknowledge that the district court has not yet\\ndetermined whether products and services that were not\\naccused (that is, changed after the jury verdict) are colora-\\nbly different for purposes of ongoing royalty calculations.\\nSuch an issue could be resolved in a future proceeding.\\n CONCLUSION\\n For the reasons above, we affirm the district court’s de-\\nnial of summary judgment that the asserted claims are pa-\\ntent-ineligible. We also agree with the district court’s\\nconstruction of “network traffic data” and affirm the dis-\\ntrict court’s grant of summary judgment of no anticipation.\\nWe vacate and remand the district court’s denial of Cisco’s\\nrenewed motion for judgment as a matter of law that Cisco\\ndid not willfully infringe the asserted claims. Accordingly,\\nwe vacate and remand the district court’s awards of en-\\nhanced damages and attorneys’ fees. Finally, we affirm the\\ndistrict court’s orders granting enhanced damages and on-\\ngoing royalties.\\n AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART,\\n AND REMANDED\\n COSTS\\n No costs.\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee\\n\\n v.\\n\\n CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,\\n Defendant-Appellant\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2223\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Delaware in No. 1:13-cv-01534-SLR-SRF, Judge\\nSue L. Robinson.\\n ______________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4416378/\", \"author_raw\": \"STOLL, Circuit Judge.\"}, {\"author\": \"LOURIE, Circuit Judge, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"LOURIE, Circuit Judge, dissenting.\\n I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision up-\\nholding the eligibility of the claims. In my view, they are\\nclearly abstract. In fact, they differ very little from the\\nclaims in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830\\nF.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where we found the\\nclaims to be abstract.\\n The majority opinion focuses on claim 1 of U.S. Patent\\n6,711,615 (“the ’615 patent”), which recites:\\n 1. A computer-automated method of hierarchical\\n event monitoring and analysis within an enterprise\\n network comprising:\\n\\n2 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n deploying a plurality of network monitors\\n in the enterprise network;\\n detecting, by the network monitors, suspi-\\n cious network activity based on analysis of\\n network traffic data selected from one or\\n more of the following categories: {network\\n packet data transfer commands, network\\n packet data transfer errors, network\\n packet data volume, network connection\\n requests, network connection denials, error\\n codes included in a network packet, net-\\n work connection acknowledgements, and\\n network packets indicative of well-known\\n network-service protocols};\\n generating, by the monitors, reports of said\\n suspicious activity; and\\n automatically receiving and integrating\\n the reports of suspicious activity, by one or\\n more hierarchical monitors.\\n Similarly, the claim we reviewed in Electric Power\\nGroup recited “[a] method of detecting events on an inter-\\nconnected electric power grid in real time over a wide area\\nand automatically analyzing the events on the intercon-\\nnected electric power grid,” with the method comprising\\neight steps, including “receiving data,” “detecting and ana-\\nlyzing events in real time,” “displaying the event analysis\\nresults and diagnoses of events,” “accumulating and updat-\\ning measurements,” and “deriving a composite indicator of\\nreliability.” 830 F.3d at 1351–52.\\n While that claim was lengthy, with eight steps, it\\nmerely described selecting information by content or source\\nfor collection, analysis, and display. Id. at 1351. In finding\\nthe claim directed to an abstract idea, we reasoned that\\n“collecting information, including when limited to particu-\\nlar content (which does not change its character as\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 3\\n\\n\\n\\ninformation)” was an abstract idea. Id. at 1353. Limiting\\nthe claim to a particular technological environment—\\npower-grid monitoring—was insufficient to transform it\\ninto a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea at its\\ncore. Id. at 1354. The claim was rooted in computer tech-\\nnology only to the extent that the broadly-recited steps re-\\nquired a computer. At step two, we noted that the claim\\ndid not require an “inventive set of components or meth-\\nods . . . that would generate new data,” and did not “invoke\\nany assertedly inventive programming.” Id. at 1355.\\n This case is hardly distinguishable from Electric Power\\nGroup. The claims in that case are said in the majority\\nopinion to only be drawn to using computers as tools to\\nsolve a problem, rather than improving the functionality of\\ncomputers and computer networks.\\n The claims here recite nothing more than deploying\\nnetwork monitors, detecting suspicious network activity,\\nand generating and handling reports. The detecting of the\\nsuspicious activity is based on “analysis” of traffic data, but\\nthe claims add nothing concerning specific means for doing\\nso. The claims only recite the moving of information. The\\ncomputer is used as a tool, and no improvement in com-\\nputer technology is shown or claimed. There is no specific\\ntechnique described for improving computer network secu-\\nrity.\\n I would find the claims directed to the abstract idea of\\nmonitoring network security and proceed to step two of Al-\\nice. As in Electric Power Group, however, “[n]othing in the\\nclaims, understood in light of the specification, requires an-\\nything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer,\\nnetwork, and display technology . . . .” 830 F.3d at 1355.\\nThe claims recite “types of information and information\\nsources,” id., but such selection of information by content\\nor source does not provide an inventive concept. Id. The\\nspecification further makes clear that the claims only rely\\non generic computer components, including a computer,\\n\\n4 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nmemory, processor, and mass storage device. See ’615 pa-\\ntent, col. 14 ll. 50–57. Indeed, the specification even deems\\nthe relevant memory bus and peripheral bus “customary\\ncomponents.” Id. col. 14 l. 55.\\n Finally, the majority opinion quotes from and para-\\nphrases language from the specification that only recites\\nresults, not means for accomplishing them. See, e.g., Ma-\\njority Op. at 9. The claims as written, however, do not re-\\ncite a specific way of enabling a computer to monitor\\nnetwork activity. As we noted in Electric Power Group, re-\\nsult-focused, functional claims that effectively cover any\\nsolution to an identified problem, like those at issue here,\\nfrequently run afoul of Alice. 830 F.3d at 1356.\\n Thus, I would find the claims to be directed to an ab-\\nstract idea at Alice step one, without an inventive concept\\nat step two, and reverse the district court’s finding of eligi-\\nbility. Because I would find the claims at issue to be ineli-\\ngible, I would not reach the remaining issues in the case.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4416378/\", \"author_raw\": \"LOURIE, Circuit Judge, dissenting\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"LOURIE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"O'MALLEY"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"STOLL"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"LOURIE\": \", Circuit\", \"O'MALLEY\": \", Circuit\", \"STOLL\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4639125/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Sri International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\n Plaintiff-Appellee\n\n v.\n\n CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,\n Defendant-Appellant\n ______________________\n\n 2017-2223\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\nDistrict of Delaware in No. 1:13-cv-01534-SLR-SRF, Judge\nSue L. Robinson.\n ______________________\n\n OPINION ISSUED: March 20, 2019\n OPINION MODIFIED: July 12, 2019 ∗\n ______________________\n\n FRANK SCHERKENBACH, Fish & Richardson, PC, Bos-\nton, MA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by\nPROSHANTO MUKHERJI; DAVID MICHAEL HOFFMAN, Austin,\nTX; HOWARD G. POLLACK, Redwood City, CA; FRANCIS J.\nALBERT, JOHN WINSTON THORNBURGH, San Diego, CA.\n\n\n\n ∗ This opinion has been modified and reissued fol-\nlowing a petition for rehearing filed by Defendant-Appel-\nlant.\n\n2 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\n\n\n\n\n WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and\nDorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendant-appellant.\nAlso represented by ANDREW J. DANFORD, LAUREN B.\nFLETCHER, LOUIS W. TOMPROS.\n ______________________\n\n Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\n Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge STOLL.\n Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge LOURIE.\nSTOLL, Circuit Judge.\n This is an appeal from a final judgment in a patent\ncase. Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) appeals the district\ncourt’s (1) denial of Cisco’s motion for summary judgment\nof patent ineligibility under § 101, (2) construction of the\nclaim term “network traffic data,” (3) grant of summary\njudgment of no anticipation, and (4) denial of judgment as\na matter of law of no willful infringement. Cisco also ap-\npeals the district court’s grant of enhanced damages, attor-\nneys’ fees, and ongoing royalties.\n We affirm the district court’s denial of summary judg-\nment of ineligibility, adopt its construction of “network\ntraffic data,” and affirm its summary judgment of no antic-\nipation. We vacate and remand the district court’s denial\nof judgment as a matter of law of no willful infringement,\nand therefore vacate and remand the district court’s en-\nhancement of damages and award of attorneys’ fees. Fi-\nnally, we affirm the district court’s award of ongoing\nroyalties on post-verdict sales of products that were actu-\nally found to infringe or are not colorably different. Accord-\ningly, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand for\nfurther proceedings consistent with this opinion.\n\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 3\n\n\n\n BACKGROUND\n I\n While the interconnectivity of computer networks facil-\nitates access for authorized users, it also increases a net-\nwork’s susceptibility to attacks from hackers, malware,\nand other security threats. Some of these security threats\ncan only be detected with information from multiple\nsources. For instance, a hacker may try logging in to sev-\neral computers or monitors in a network. The number of\nlogin attempts for each computer may be below the thresh-\nold to trigger an alert, making it difficult to detect such an\nattack by looking at only a single monitor location in the\nnetwork. In an attempt to solve this problem, SRI devel-\noped the inventions claimed in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,484,203\nand 6,711,615. The ’615 patent (titled “Network Surveil-\nlance”) is a continuation of the ’203 patent (titled “Hierar-\nchical Event Monitoring and Analysis”).\n II\n SRI had performed considerable research and develop-\nment on network intrusion detection prior to filing the pa-\ntents-in-suit. In fact, SRI’s Event Monitoring Enabling\nResponses to Anomalous Live Disturbances (“EMERALD”)\nproject had attracted considerable attention in this field.\nThe Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research\nProjects Agency, which helped fund EMERALD, called it a\n“gem in the world of cyber defense” and “a quantum leap\nimprovement over” previous technology. J.A. 1272–73\nat 272:16–17, 273:7–9. In October 1997, SRI presented a\npaper entitled “EMERALD: Event Monitoring Enabling\nResponses to Anomalous Live Disturbances”\n(“EMERALD 1997”) at the 20th National Information Sys-\ntems Security Conference.\n EMERALD 1997 is a conceptual overview of the\nEMERALD system. It describes in detail SRI’s early re-\nsearch in intrusion detection technology and outlines the\n\n4 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\n\n\n\n\ndevelopment of next generation technology for detecting\nnetwork anomalies. SRI Int’l Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,\n647 F. Supp. 2d 323, 334 (D. Del. 2009). The parties do not\ndispute that EMERALD 1997 constitutes prior art under\n35 U.S.C. § 102(b). EMERALD 1997 is listed as a reference\non the face of the ’615 patent.\n III\n The patents share a nearly identical specification and\na priority date of November 9, 1998. At the summary judg-\nment stage, SRI asserted claims 1–4, 14–16, and 18 of the\n’615 patent and claims 1–4, 12–15, and 17 of the ’203 pa-\ntent. By the time of trial, SRI had narrowed the asserted\nclaims to claims 1, 2, 12, and 13 of the ’203 patent and\nclaims 1, 2, 13, and 14 of the ’615 patent. The jury consid-\nered only this narrower set of claims.\n The parties identify different representative claims.\nCisco proposes claim 1 of the ’203 patent, while SRI pro-\nposes claim 1 of the ’615 patent. The claims are substan-\ntially similar, as the minor differences between them are\nnot material to any issue on appeal. As such, we adopt\nSRI’s proposal and use ’615 patent claim 1 as the repre-\nsentative claim. 1 It reads:\n 1. A computer-automated method of hierarchical\n event monitoring and analysis within an enterprise\n network comprising:\n\n\n\n 1 The minor differences between the two claims are\nin the detecting clause—claim 1 of the ’615 patent allows\nfor network traffic data selected from “one or more of” the\nenumerated categories, and includes two extra categories\nin its list: “network connection acknowledgements” and\n“network packets indicative of well-known network-service\nprotocols.” Compare ’203 patent col. 14 ll. 19–35 (claim 1),\nwith ’615 patent col. 15 ll. 2–21 (claim 1).\n\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 5\n\n\n\n deploying a plurality of network monitors in\n the enterprise network;\n detecting, by the network monitors, suspicious\n network activity based on analysis of network\n traffic data selected from one or more of the fol-\n lowing categories: {network packet data trans-\n fer commands, network packet data transfer\n errors, network packet data volume, network\n connection requests, network connection deni-\n als, error codes included in a network packet,\n network connection acknowledgements, and\n network packets indicative of well-known net-\n work-service protocols};\n generating, by the monitors, reports of said\n suspicious activity; and\n automatically receiving and integrating the re-\n ports of suspicious activity, by one or more hi-\n erarchical monitors.\n’615 patent col. 15 ll. 2–21.\n After SRI sued Cisco for infringement of the ’615 pa-\ntent and the ’203 patent, Cisco unsuccessfully moved for\nsummary judgment on several issues, including that the\nclaims are ineligible and that the EMERALD 1997 refer-\nence anticipates the claims. 2 SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,\n\n\n\n 2 The patents previously survived multiple anticipa-\ntion challenges based on the EMERALD 1997 reference.\nThe Patent Office considered EMERALD 1997 during the\noriginal prosecution and issued the patents over it.\nJ.A. 32734 ¶ 47; J.A. 32814–15 ¶ 207. In addition, during\nthe two reexaminations, the Patent Office again considered\nthe validity of the asserted claims over EMERALD 1997\nand again found the claims valid. J.A. 32734 ¶ 47. Addi-\ntionally, in SRI International Inc. v. Internet Security\n\n6 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\n\n\n\n\nInc., 179 F. Supp. 3d 339 (D. Del. Apr. 11, 2016) (“Sum-\nmary Judgment Op.”). The district court denied Cisco’s mo-\ntions and instead sua sponte granted summary judgment\nof no anticipation in SRI’s favor. 3 Id. at 369.\n The court then held a jury trial on infringement, valid-\nity, and willful infringement of claims 1, 2, 13, and 14 of\nthe ’615 patent and claims 1, 2, 12, and 13 of the ’203 pa-\ntent, as well as damages. The jury found that Cisco intru-\nsion protection system (“IPS”) products, Cisco remote\nmanagement services, Cisco IPS services, Sourcefire 4 IPS\nproducts, and Sourcefire professional services directly and\nindirectly infringed the asserted claims. The jury awarded\nSRI a 3.5% reasonable royalty for a total of $23,660,000 in\ncompensatory damages. The jury also found by clear and\nconvincing evidence that Cisco’s infringement was willful.\n After post-trial briefing, the district court denied\nCisco’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willfulness. SRI\n\n\nSystems, Inc., a jury found the patents not anticipated by\nEMERALD 1997. 647 F. Supp. 2d at 350. The district\ncourt denied JMOL, concluding that the verdict was sup-\nported by expert testimony that EMERALD 1997 failed to\ndisclose the claim limitation at issue. Id. We affirmed\nwithout opinion. SRI Int’l Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,\n401 F. App’x 530 (Fed. Cir. 2010).\n 3 The parties disputed only whether\nEMERALD 1997 discloses detection of any of the network\ntraffic data categories listed in claim 1 of the ’203 and\n’615 patents and whether EMERALD 1997 is enabled.\nOne of the claimed categories of network traffic is “network\nconnection requests,” which Cisco asserts is disclosed by\nEMERALD 1997.\n 4 “Sourcefire” is a network security company that\nCisco acquired in 2013. J.A. 2467–68. Cisco now markets\nnetwork security products and services under the\nSourcefire name.\n\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 7\n\n\n\nInt’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 254 F. Supp. 3d 680, 717\n(D. Del. 2017) (“Post-Trial Motions Op.”). Based on the\nwillfulness verdict, the district court determined that\n“some enhancement is appropriate given Cisco’s litigation\nconduct,” the “fact that Cisco lost on all issues during sum-\nmary judgment,” and “its apparent disdain for SRI and its\nbusiness model.” Id. at 723. The court then doubled the\ndamages award. It also granted SRI’s motion for attorneys’\nfees, compulsory license, and prejudgment interest.\n Cisco appeals the district court’s claim construction\nand denial of summary judgment of ineligibility, 5 as well\nas its grant of summary judgment of no anticipation, en-\nhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and ongoing royalties.\nWe have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).\n DISCUSSION\n I\n We review de novo whether a claim is drawn to patent-\neligible subject matter. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d\n1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Intellectual Ventures I\nLLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1338\n(Fed. Cir. 2017)). Section 101 defines patent-eligible\n\n\n 5 We may review this denial of summary judgment\nbecause “a denial of a motion for summary judgment may\nbe appealed, even after a final judgment at trial, if the mo-\ntion involved a purely legal question and the factual dis-\nputes resolved at trial do not affect the resolution of that\nlegal question.” United Techs. Corp. v. Chromalloy Gas\nTurbine Corp., 189 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing\nWolfgang v. Mid-Am. Motorsports, Inc., 111 F.3d 1515,\n1521 (10th Cir. 1997); Rekhi v. Wildwood Indus., Inc.,\n61 F.3d 1313, 1318 (7th Cir. 1995)). Neither party con-\ntends that fact issues arise in the patent-eligibility analysis\nin this case. Therefore, we may review the purely legal\nquestion of patent eligibility.\n\n8 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\n\n\n\n\nsubject matter as “any new and useful process, machine,\nmanufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and\nuseful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of na-\nture, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas, however, are\nnot patentable. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prome-\ntheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70–71 (2012) (citing Dia-\nmond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)).\n To determine whether a patent claims ineligible sub-\nject matter, the Supreme Court has established a two-step\nframework. First, we must determine whether the claims\nat issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept such as\nan abstract idea. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.\n208, 217 (2014). Second, if the claims are directed to an\nabstract idea, we must “consider the elements of each claim\nboth individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to deter-\nmine whether the additional elements ‘transform the na-\nture of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id.\n(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79). To transform an abstract\nidea into a patent-eligible application, the claims must do\n“more than simply stat[e] the abstract idea while adding\nthe words ‘apply it.’” Id. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.\nat 72 (internal alterations omitted)).\n We resolve the eligibility issue at Alice step one and\nconclude that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea.\nSee Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337\n(Fed. Cir. 2016). The district court concluded that the\nclaims are more complex than merely reciting the perfor-\nmance of a known business practice on the Internet and are\nbetter understood as being necessarily rooted in computer\ntechnology in order to solve a specific problem in the realm\nof computer networks. Summary Judgment Op.,\n179 F. Supp. 3d at 353–54 (citing ’203 patent col. 1 ll. 37–\n40; DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,\n1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). We agree. The claims are directed\nto using a specific technique—using a plurality of network\nmonitors that each analyze specific types of data on the\nnetwork and integrating reports from the monitors—to\n\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 9\n\n\n\nsolve a technological problem arising in computer net-\nworks: identifying hackers or potential intruders into the\nnetwork.\n Contrary to Cisco’s assertion, the claims are not di-\nrected to just analyzing data from multiple sources to de-\ntect suspicious activity. Instead, the claims are directed to\nan improvement in computer network technology. Indeed,\nrepresentative claim 1 recites using network monitors to\ndetect suspicious network activity based on analysis of net-\nwork traffic data, generating reports of that suspicious ac-\ntivity, and integrating those reports using hierarchical\nmonitors. ’615 patent col. 15 ll. 2–21. The “focus of the\nclaims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer\ncapabilities”—that is, providing a network defense system\nthat monitors network traffic in real-time to automatically\ndetect large-scale attacks. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36.\n The specification bolsters our conclusion that the\nclaims are directed to a technological solution to a techno-\nlogical problem. The specification explains that, while\ncomputer networks “offer users ease and efficiency in ex-\nchanging information,” ’615 patent col. 1 ll. 28–29, “the\nvery interoperability and sophisticated integration of tech-\nnology that make networks such valuable assets also make\nthem vulnerable to attack, and make dependence on net-\nworks a potential liability.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 36–39. The\nspecification further teaches that, in conventional net-\nworks, seemingly localized triggering events can have glob-\nally disastrous effects on widely distributed systems—like\nthe 1980 ARPAnet collapse and the 1990 AT&T collapse.\nSee id. at col. 1 ll. 43–47. The specification explains that\nthe claimed invention is directed to solving these weak-\nnesses in conventional networks and provides “a frame-\nwork for the recognition of more global threats to\ninterdomain connectivity, including coordinated attempts\nto infiltrate or destroy connectivity across an entire net-\nwork enterprise.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 44–48.\n\n10 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\n\n\n\n\n Cisco argues that the claims are directed to an abstract\nidea for three primary reasons. First, Cisco argues that the\nclaims are analogous to those in Electric Power Group, LLC\nv. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and are\nsimply directed to generic steps required to collect and an-\nalyze data. We disagree. The Electric Power claims were\ndrawn to using computers as tools to solve a power grid\nproblem, rather than improving the functionality of com-\nputers and computer networks themselves. Id. at 1354.\nWe conclude that the claims are more like the patent-eligi-\nble claims in DDR Holdings. In DDR, we emphasized that\nthe claims were directed to more than an abstract idea that\nmerely required a “computer network operating in its nor-\nmal, expected manner.” 773 F.3d at 1258. Here, the claims\nactually prevent the normal, expected operation of a con-\nventional computer network. Like the claims in DDR, the\nclaimed technology “overrides the routine and conventional\nsequence of events” by detecting suspicious network activ-\nity, generating reports of suspicious activity, and receiving\nand integrating the reports using one or more hierarchical\nmonitors. Id.\n Second, Cisco argues that the invention does not in-\nvolve “an improvement to computer functionality itself.”\nEnfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. In Alice, the Supreme Court ad-\nvised that claims directed to independently abstract ideas\nthat use computers as tools are still abstract. 573 U.S.\nat 222–23. However, the claims here are not directed to\nusing a computer as a tool—that is, automating a conven-\ntional idea on a computer. Rather, the representative\nclaim improves the technical functioning of the computer\nand computer networks by reciting a specific technique for\nimproving computer network security.\n Cisco also submits that the asserted claims are so gen-\neral that they encompass steps that people can “go through\nin their minds,” allegedly confirming that they are directed\nto an abstract concept. Appellant Br. 27–28 (citing Capital\nOne, 850 F.3d at 1340; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.\n\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 11\n\n\n\nSymantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Cy-\nberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,\n1371 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). We disagree. This is not the type\nof human activity that § 101 is meant to exclude. Indeed,\nwe tend to agree with SRI that the human mind is not\nequipped to detect suspicious activity by using network\nmonitors and analyzing network packets as recited by the\nclaims.\n Because we conclude that the claims are not directed\nto an abstract idea under step one of the Alice analysis, we\nneed not reach step two. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339. Ac-\ncordingly, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment\nthat the claims are patent-eligible.\n II\n A district court’s claim construction based solely on in-\ntrinsic evidence is a legal question that we review de novo.\nSee Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831,\n841 (2015). Claim construction seeks to ascribe the “ordi-\nnary and customary meaning” to claim terms as a person\nof ordinary skill in the art would have understood them at\nthe time of invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d\n1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics\nCorp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.\n1996)). “[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guid-\nance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Id.\nat 1314. In addition, “the person of ordinary skill in the art\nis deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of\nthe particular claim in which the disputed term appears,\nbut in the context of the entire patent, including the speci-\nfication.” Id. at 1313.\n The district court construed “[n]etwork traffic data” to\nmean “data obtained from direct examination of network\npackets.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Dell Inc., No. CV13-1534-SLR,\n2015 WL 2265756, at *1–2 (D. Del. May 14, 2015). After\nreviewing the parties’ pleadings on summary judgment,\nthe district court determined that its construction would\n\n12 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\n\n\n\n\nbenefit from clarification. The district court explained that\n“[t]o say that the data ‘is obtained from direct examination\nof network packets’ means to differentiate the original\nsource of the data, not how or where the data is ana-\nlyzed. . . . The fact that the data may be stored before anal-\nysis is performed on the data does not detract from its\nlineage.” Summary Judgment Op., 179 F. Supp. 3d at 363.\nThe district court explicitly rejected the opinion of Cisco’s\nexpert, Dr. Clark, that the court’s claim construction\nshould require that the analysis of data obtained from net-\nwork packets take place without any further manipulation\nwhatsoever. Id.\n On appeal, Cisco offers a more nuanced construction,\nasserting that term should instead be construed as “detect-\ning suspicious network activity based on ‘direct examina-\ntion of network packets,’ where such ‘direct examination’\ndoes not include merely examining data that has been ob-\ntained, generated, or gleaned from network packets.” Ap-\npellant Br. 42. According to Cisco, based on SRI’s express\nprosecution disclaimer during reexamination, the claims\nrequire detecting suspicious activity based on “direct exam-\nination” of network packets, not data “generated” or\n“gleaned” from packets. Cisco would thus construe the\nterm to exclude a process that decodes the network packet.\n We conclude that Cisco’s proposed construction goes\ntoo far in limiting the amount of preprocessing encom-\npassed by the claim. The specification shows that prepro-\ncessing is a contemplated and expected part of the claimed\ninvention. Indeed, the specification specifically mentions\ndifferent forms of preprocessing network packets prior to\nexamination, including decryption (’615 patent col. 3\nll. 61–63), parsing (id. at col. 8 ll. 10–12), and decoding (id.\nat col. 8 ll. 7–9).\n Cisco’s argument that SRI disclaimed preprocessing\nduring reexamination of its patents is also not persuasive.\nTo invoke argument-based estoppel, “the prosecution\n\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 13\n\n\n\nhistory must evince a ‘clear and unmistakable surrender’”\nof this kind of preprocessing. Deering Precision Instru-\nments v. Vector Distrib. Sys., 347 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir.\n2003) (quoting Eagle Comtronics, Inc. v. Arrow Commc’n\nLabs., Inc., 305 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also\nKrippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir.\n2012) (applying prosecution history disclaimer from reex-\namination proceedings). Here, SRI’s statements during\nreexamination reflect that SRI drew the line between what\ndoes and does not comprise “direct examination” by exclud-\ning information derived from network packet data (for ex-\nample, network traffic measures and network traffic\nstatistics). At the same time, SRI explained that “direct\nexamination” includes the data from which the network\ntraffic measures and network traffic statistics are derived\n(that is, the data in the network packets). For example,\nSRI explained that the specification:\n [D]emonstrates that the term “network traffic\n data” requires information obtained by direct\n packet examination by using the distinctly differ-\n ent terms “network traffic measures” and “network\n traffic statistics” when discussing information de-\n rived from network traffic observation, as com-\n pared to the data from which the measures and\n statistics are derived.\nBrief for the Patentee on Appeal at 7, In re Porras, Reexam\nNo. 90/008,125 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 14, 2010) (citing ’203 patent\ncol. 4 ll. 55–60 (discussing “network traffic statistics”) and\ncol. 5 ll. 28–30 (discussing “network traffic measures”)).\n We read SRI’s statements during reexamination as\nsimply explaining that “network traffic statistics,” such as\nnumber of packets and number of kilobytes transferred,\nare statistics derived from the network packet data—not\nthe underlying data itself. SRI did not argue that the ac-\ntual data underlying the measures and statistics—the data\nin the network packets—could not be subject to direct\n\n14 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\n\n\n\n\nexamination. Nor did SRI take the position that “direct ex-\namination” must take place before any or all processing.\nSRI did not mention processing at all during reexamina-\ntion. Moreover, as the specification makes clear, the sys-\ntem may need to decrypt, parse, or decode the data\npackets—all forms of preprocessing—in order to directly\nexamine the network packet data underlying the network\ntraffic statistics.\n We hold that SRI’s statements in the prosecution his-\ntory do not invoke a clear and unmistakable surrender of\nall preprocessing, including decryption, decoding, and\nparsing. Accordingly, we agree with the district court’s\nconstruction of “network traffic data” to mean “data ob-\ntained from direct examination of network packets.”\n III\n We also hold that the district court did not err in grant-\ning summary judgment that the asserted claims are not an-\nticipated by SRI’s own EMERALD 1997 reference. We\nreview the district court’s summary judgment of no antici-\npation under regional circuit law. See MAG Aerospace In-\ndus., Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 816 F.3d 1374, 1376\n(Fed. Cir. 2016). The Third Circuit reviews a grant of sum-\nmary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the\ndistrict court. See Gonzalez v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Homeland\nSec., 678 F.3d 254, 257 (3d Cir. 2012). Summary judgment\nis appropriate when, drawing all justifiable inferences in\nthe nonmovant’s favor, there exists no genuine issue of ma-\nterial fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a mat-\nter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty\nLobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Anticipation re-\nquires that a single prior art reference disclose each and\nevery limitation of the claimed invention, either expressly\nor inherently. See Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.,\n814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).\n EMERALD 1997 discloses a tool for tracking malicious\nactivity across large networks. The question before us is\n\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 15\n\n\n\nwhether the district court erred in concluding on summary\njudgment that EMERALD 1997 does not disclose detection\nof any of the network traffic data categories listed in\nclaim 1 of the ’203 and ’615 patents. The Patent Office con-\nsidered EMERALD 1997 during the original examination\nof the ’615 patent, and the patentability of the claims over\nthe reference was confirmed in multiple reexamination and\nlitigation proceedings. Indeed, during reexamination, the\nPatent Office accepted SRI’s argument that the claim lim-\nitation requires detecting suspicious activity based on “di-\nrect examination” of network packets to distinguish\nEMERALD 1997. J.A. 26402 (“[T]he closest prior art of\nrecord, Emerald 1997, fails to teach direct examination of\npacket data.”); J.A. 27101 (same).\n EMERALD 1997 describes detecting a DNS/NFS at-\ntack in “real-time.” J.A. 5004. To achieve this,\nEMERALD 1997 explains:\n The subscription list field is an important facility\n for gaining visibility into malicious or anomalous\n activity outside the immediate environment of an\n EMERALD monitor. The most obvious examples\n where relationships are important involve interde-\n pendencies among network services that make lo-\n cal policy decisions. Consider, for example, the\n interdependencies between access checks per-\n formed during network file system [“NFS”] mount-\n ing and the IP mapping of the DNS service. An\n unexpected mount monitored by the network file\n system service may be responded to differently if\n the DNS monitor informs the network file system\n monitor of suspicious updates to the mount re-\n quester’s DNS mapping.\nJ.A. 5008. EMERALD 1997 further explains that:\n Above the service layer, signature engines scan the\n aggregate of intrusion reports from service moni-\n tors in an attempt to detect more global\n\n16 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\n\n\n\n\n coordinated attack scenarios or scenarios that ex-\n ploit interdependencies among network services.\n The DNS/NFS attack discussed [above] is one such\n example of an aggregate attack scenario.\nJ.A. 5010.\n Cisco’s expert submitted a report concluding that a per-\nson of ordinary skill in the art would understand from this\ndisclosure that “monitoring specific network services, such\nas HTTP, FTP, network file systems, finger, Kerberos, and\nSNMP would require detecting and analyzing packets in-\ndicative of those well-known network service protocols, one\nof the enumerated categories in claim 1 of the ’615 patent.”\nJ.A. 30347 (emphasis added). During deposition, however,\nCisco’s expert retreated from this position, admitting that\na person of ordinary skill reading EMERALD 1997 would\nhave understood that it was not necessary to directly ex-\namine the packets, although that would be “one very good\nway” to prevent attacks. J.A. 50040 at 159:12–21.\n On this record, we conclude that summary judgment\nwas appropriate. EMERALD 1997 does not expressly dis-\nclose directly examining network packets as required by\nthe claims—especially not to obtain data about network\nconnection requests. Nor does Cisco’s expert testimony cre-\nate a genuine issue of fact on this issue. Rather, we agree\nwith the district court that Cisco’s expert’s testimony is\nboth inconsistent and “based on [] multiple layers of suppo-\nsition.” Summary Judgment Op., 179 F. Supp. 3d at 358.\nBecause the evidence does not support express or inherent\ndisclosure of direct examination of packet data, we con-\nclude that the district court did not err in holding that\nthere was no genuine issue of fact regarding whether\nEMERALD 1997 disclosed analyzing the specific enumer-\nated types of network traffic data recited in the claims.\n Cisco next argues that the district court erred by grant-\ning summary judgment for SRI sua sponte despite SRI’s\nfailure to move for such relief. We disagree. Under Third\n\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 17\n\n\n\nCircuit law, a district court may properly enter summary\njudgment sua sponte “so long as the losing party was on\nnotice that she had to come forward with all of her evi-\ndence.” Gibson v. Mayor & Council of City of Wilmington,\n355 F.3d 215, 222 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Celotex Corp. v.\nCatrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986)). By filing its own motion\nfor summary judgment, Cisco was on notice that anticipa-\ntion was before the court, and Cisco had the opportunity to\nput forth its best evidence. Additionally, SRI did argue, in\nopposition to Cisco’s summary judgment motion, that the\ndistrict court should outright reject Cisco’s assertion of in-\nvalidity. J.A. 31650 (“Cisco’s assertion of invalidity should\nbe rejected . . . .”). Indeed, SRI expressly took the position\nthat EMERALD 1997 “does not anticipate any claim of the\n’203 or ’615 patents.” J.A. 31678. Thus, any notice require-\nment was satisfied because Cisco itself indicated that the\nissue was ripe for summary adjudication and SRI took the\nposition that the claims were not anticipated. Accordingly,\nwe see no error in the sua sponte nature of the district\ncourt’s order and we affirm the summary judgment of no\nanticipation.\n IV\n Cisco also appeals the district court’s denial of JMOL\nthat it did not willfully infringe the asserted patents be-\ncause the jury’s willfulness finding is not supported by sub-\nstantial evidence. We agree that the jury’s finding that\nCisco willfully infringed the patents-in-suit prior to receiv-\ning notice thereof is not supported by substantial evidence\nand therefore vacate and remand.\n We review decisions on motions for JMOL under the\nlaw of the regional circuit. Energy Transp. Grp. Inc. v. Wil-\nliam Demant Holding A/S, 697 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir.\n2012). The Third Circuit reviews district court decisions\non such motions de novo. Acumed LLC v. Adv. Surgical\nServs., Inc., 561 F.3d 199, 211 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Mon-\nteiro v. City of Elizabeth, 436 F.3d 397, 404 (3d Cir. 2006)).\n\n18 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\n\n\n\n\nIn the Third Circuit, a “court may grant a judgment as a\nmatter of law contrary to the verdict only if ‘the record is\ncritically deficient of the minimum quantum of evidence’ to\nsustain the verdict.” Id. (citing Gomez v. Allegheny Health\nServs., Inc., 71 F.3d 1079, 1083 (3d Cir. 1995)). The court\nshould grant JMOL “sparingly” and “only if, viewing the\nevidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and\ngiving it the advantage of every fair and reasonable infer-\nence, there is insufficient evidence from which a jury rea-\nsonably could find liability.” Marra v. Phila. Hous. Auth.,\n497 F.3d 286, 300 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Moyer v. United\nDominion Indus., Inc., 473 F.3d 532, 545 n.8 (3d Cir.\n2007)).\n As the Supreme Court stated in Halo, “[t]he sort of con-\nduct warranting enhanced damages has been variously de-\nscribed in our cases as willful, wanton, malicious, bad-\nfaith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or—in-\ndeed—characteristic of a pirate.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse\nElecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1932 (2016). While district\ncourts have discretion in deciding whether or not behavior\nrises to that standard, such findings “are generally re-\nserved for egregious cases of culpable behavior.” Id. In-\ndeed, as Justice Breyer emphasized in his concurrence, it\nis the circumstances that transform simple “intentional or\nknowing” infringement into egregious, sanctionable behav-\nior, and that makes all the difference. Id. at 1936 (Breyer,\nJ., concurring). A patentee need only show by a preponder-\nance of the evidence the facts that support a finding of will-\nful infringement. Id. at 1934.\n In denying Cisco’s motion for JMOL on willfulness, the\ndistrict court concluded that the jury’s willfulness determi-\nnation was supported by two evidentiary bases. First, the\ncourt identified evidence that “key Cisco employees did not\nread the patents-in-suit until their depositions.” Post-Trial\nMotions Op., 254 F. Supp. 3d at 717. Second, the court\nidentified evidence that Cisco designed the products and\nservices in an infringing manner and that Cisco instructed\n\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 19\n\n\n\nits customers to use the products and services in an infring-\ning manner. Based on these two facts, the district court\ndenied Cisco’s renewed motion for JMOL on willfulness,\nstating that “[v]iewing the record in the light most favora-\nble to SRI, substantial evidence supports the jury’s subjec-\ntive willfulness verdict.” Id.\n On appeal, SRI identifies additional evidence that pur-\nportedly supports the jury’s willfulness verdict. Specifi-\ncally, SRI presented evidence that Cisco expressed interest\nin the patented technology and met with SRI’s inventor in\n2000 before developing its infringing products. J.A. 1484–\n86; J.A. 5027. Additionally, SRI submitted evidence that\nCisco received a notice letter from SRI’s licensing consult-\nant on May 8, 2012, informing Cisco of the asserted patents\n(a year before SRI filed the complaint). Finally, like the\ndistrict court, SRI makes much of the fact that “key engi-\nneers” did not look at SRI’s patents until SRI took their\ndepositions during this litigation. In particular, Cisco en-\ngineers Martin Roesch and James Kasper did not look at\nthe patent until their depositions in 2015.\n Even accepting this evidence as true and weighing all\ninferences in SRI’s favor, we conclude that the record is in-\nsufficient to establish that Cisco’s conduct rose to the level\nof wanton, malicious, and bad-faith behavior required for\nwillful infringement. First, it is undisputed that the Cisco\nemployees who did not read the patents-in-suit until their\ndepositions were engineers without legal training. Given\nCisco’s size and resources, it was unremarkable that the\nengineers—as opposed to Cisco’s in-house or outside coun-\nsel—did not analyze the patents-in-suit themselves. The\nother rationale offered by the district court—that Cisco de-\nsigned the products and services in an infringing manner\nand that Cisco instructed its customers to use the products\nand services in an infringing manner—is nothing more\nthan proof that Cisco directly infringed and induced others\nto infringe the patents-in-suit.\n\n20 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\n\n\n\n\n It is undisputed that Cisco did not know of SRI’s patent\nuntil May 8, 2012, when SRI sent its notice letter to Cisco.\nOral Arg. at 23:46, available at http://oralarguments.cafc.\nuscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2017-2223.mp3. It is also un-\ndisputed that this notice letter was sent years after Cisco\nindependently developed the accused systems and first sold\nthem in 2005 (Cisco) and 2007 (Sourcefire). As SRI admits,\nthe patents had not issued when the parties met in\nMay 2000. Indeed, the patent application for the parent\n’203 patent was not even filed until several months after\nthe parties met. Thus, Cisco could not have been aware of\nthe patent application.\n While the jury heard evidence that Cisco was aware of\nthe patents in May 2012, before filing of the lawsuit, we do\nnot see how the record supports a willfulness finding going\nback to 2000. As the Supreme Court recently observed,\n“culpability is generally measured against the knowledge\nof the actor at the time of the challenged conduct.” Halo,\n136 S. Ct. at 1933. Similarly, Cisco’s allegedly aggressive\nlitigation tactics cannot support a finding of willful in-\nfringement going back to 2000, especially when the litiga-\ntion did not start until 2012. Finally, Cisco’s decision not\nto seek an advice-of-counsel defense is legally irrelevant\nunder 35 U.S.C. § 298.\n Viewing the record in the light most favorable to SRI,\nthe jury’s verdict of willful infringement before May 8, 2012\nis not supported by substantial evidence. Given the gen-\neral verdict form, we presume the jury also found that\nCisco willfully infringed after May 8, 2012. When review-\ning a denial of JMOL, “where there is a black box jury ver-\ndict, as is the case here, we presume the jury resolved\nunderlying factual disputes in favor of the verdict winner\nand leave those presumed findings undisturbed if sup-\nported by substantial evidence.” Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bom-\nbardier Recreational Prods. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1358\n(Fed. Cir. 2017), (citing WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d\n1317, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 143\n\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 21\n\n\n\n(2018). We leave it to the district court to decide in the first\ninstance whether the jury’s presumed finding of willful in-\nfringement after May 8, 2012 is supported by substantial\nevidence. 6 In so doing, the court should bear in mind the\nstandard for willful infringement, as well as the above\nanalysis regarding SRI’s evidence of willfulness. Accord-\ningly, we vacate and remand the district court’s denial of\nCisco’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willful infringe-\nment.\n Cisco also argues that the district court abused its dis-\ncretion by doubling damages. Enhanced damages under\n§ 284 are predicated on a finding of willful infringement.\nBecause we conclude that the jury’s finding of willfulness\nbefore 2012 was not supported by substantial evidence, we\ndo not reach the propriety of the district court’s award of\nenhanced damages. Instead, we vacate the award of en-\nhanced damages and remand for further consideration\nalong with willfulness.\n V\n We next turn to the district court’s award of attorneys’\nfees under § 285, which we vacate and remand for further\nconsideration. Under § 285, a “court in exceptional cases\nmay award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing\n\n\n 6 We recognize that, ideally, it should not fall to the\ndistrict court to determine when, if ever, willful infringe-\nment began through the mechanism of JMOL. Rather, the\nquestion of when willful infringement began is a fact issue\nthat would have been best presented to the jury in a special\nverdict form with appropriate jury instructions. Better yet,\nperhaps SRI could have recognized the shortcomings in its\ncase and presented a more limited case of willful infringe-\nment from 2012 onwards. Or perhaps Cisco could have\nfiled a motion for summary judgment of no willful infringe-\nment prior to May 8, 2012.\n\n22 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\n\n\n\n\nparty.” An “exceptional” case under § 285 is “one that\nstands out from others with respect to the substantive\nstrength of a party’s litigating position (considering both\nthe governing law and the facts of the case) or the unrea-\nsonable manner in which the case was litigated.” Octane\nFitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545,\n554 (2014). The party seeking fees must prove that the\ncase is exceptional by a preponderance of the evidence, and\nthe district court makes the exceptional case determination\non a case-by-case basis considering the totality of the cir-\ncumstances. See id. at 554, 557.\n We review a district court’s grant or denial of attorneys’\nfees for an abuse of discretion, which is a highly deferential\nstandard of review. Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt.\nSys., Inc., 572 U.S. 559, 564 (2014); Bayer CropScience AG\nv. Dow AgroSciences LLC, 851 F.3d 1302, 1306 (Fed. Cir.\n2017) (citing Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Quickturn Design\nSys., Inc., 150 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). To meet\nthe abuse-of-discretion standard, the appellant must show\nthat the district court made “a clear error of judgment in\nweighing relevant factors or in basing its decision on an er-\nror of law or on clearly erroneous factual findings.” Bayer,\n851 F.3d at 1306 (quoting Mentor Graphics, 150 F.3d\nat 1377); see also Highmark, 572 U.S. at 563 n.2.\n We see no such error in the district court’s determina-\ntion that this was an exceptional case. The district court\nfound:\n There can be no doubt from even a cursory review\n of the record that Cisco pursued litigation about as\n aggressively as the court has seen in its judicial ex-\n perience. While defending a client aggressively is\n understandable, if not laudable, in the case at bar,\n Cisco crossed the line in several regards.\nPost-Trial Motions Op., 254 F. Supp. 3d at 722.\n\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 23\n\n\n\n The district court further explained that “Cisco’s litiga-\ntion strategies in the case at bar created a substantial\namount of work for both SRI and the court, much of which\nwork was needlessly repetitive or irrelevant or frivolous.”\nId. at 723 (footnotes omitted). Indeed, the district court in-\nventoried Cisco’s aggressive tactics, including maintaining\nnineteen invalidity theories until the eve of trial but only\npresenting two at trial and pursuing defenses at trial that\nwere contrary to the court’s rulings or Cisco’s internal doc-\numents. Id. at 722. Nevertheless, the district court relied\nin part on the fact that the jury found that Cisco’s infringe-\nment was willful in its determination to exercise its discre-\ntion pursuant to § 285 to award SRI its attorneys’ fees and\ncosts. Id. at 723. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s\naward of attorneys’ fees and remand for further considera-\ntion along with willfulness.\n We take no issue with the district court’s award of at-\ntorneys’ fees at the attorneys’ billing rates without adjust-\ning them to Delaware rates. At the same time, however,\nthe district court erred in granting all of SRI’s fees. Sec-\ntion 285 permits a prevailing party to recover reasonable\nattorneys’ fees, but not fees for hours expended by counsel\nthat were “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unneces-\nsary.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). We\naccordingly conclude that the district court should have re-\nduced SRI’s total hours to eliminate clear mistakes. For\nexample, one billing entry reads “DON’T RELEASE,\nCLIENT MATTER NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.”\nJ.A. 32384. Accordingly, should the district court award\nattorneys’ fees on remand, it must remove attorney hours\nclearly included by mistake in its calculation of reasonable\nattorneys’ fees.\n VI\n We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s\ngrant of an ongoing royalty. Whitserve, LLC v. Comput.\nPackages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10, 35 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, the\n\n24 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\n\n\n\n\ndistrict court did not abuse its discretion in awarding “a\n3.5% compulsory license for all post-verdict sales.” Post-\nTrial Motions Op., 254 F. Supp. 3d at 724. The district\ncourt’s ongoing royalty rate equals the rate found by the\njury and the base is limited to the “accused products and\nservices.” J.A. 182.\n On appeal, Cisco argues that the district court abused\nits discretion in awarding the 3.5% ongoing royalty on “all\npost-verdict sales” without considering Cisco’s design-\narounds. According to Cisco, the court was obligated to as-\nsess whether Cisco’s redesigned products and services were\nmore than colorably different from those products and ser-\nvices adjudicated at trial, and if not, whether those rede-\nsigned products and services infringe. To this end, Cisco\nmoved to supplement its post-trial briefing with declara-\ntions describing its redesign efforts. Cisco argues that the\ndistrict court abused its discretion by denying its motion to\nsupplement. 7 We disagree. The district court properly ex-\nercised its discretion in denying Cisco’s motion to supple-\nment the record regarding alleged post-verdict design-\naround activity. Cisco did not redesign its products until\nafter trial, and Cisco did not file its motion to supplement\nuntil after completion of post-trial briefing. Given the\n\n\n\n 7 Finally, Cisco argues that, in the same order in\nwhich the court stated that “[t]here are no post-verdict roy-\nalties,” the court awarded a post-verdict royalty—an inter-\nnal inconsistency. J.A. 175. We do not ascribe weight to\nthe apparent clerical error creating the inconsistency. The\ndistrict court’s final judgment order is clear that “Cisco\nshall pay a 3.5% compulsory license on all post-verdict\nsales of the accused products and services.” J.A. 182. To\nthe extent that clear statement conflicts with the single\nsentence in the memorandum opinion, we think the court\nmade its intentions clear in its final judgment and we see\nno error by the district court.\n\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 25\n\n\n\nstage of the proceedings and SRI’s opposition, the trial\ncourt acted within its discretion when denying Cisco’s mo-\ntion to supplement.\n To the extent the district court’s order is unclear—and\nwe think it is not—we reconfirm that the ongoing royalty\non post-verdict sales is limited to products that were actu-\nally found to infringe and products that are not colorably\ndifferent. We discern no error in the district court’s deter-\nmination that Cisco’s submissions were untimely. Never-\ntheless, we acknowledge that the district court has not yet\ndetermined whether products and services that were not\naccused (that is, changed after the jury verdict) are colora-\nbly different for purposes of ongoing royalty calculations.\nSuch an issue could be resolved in a future proceeding.\n CONCLUSION\n For the reasons above, we affirm the district court’s de-\nnial of summary judgment that the asserted claims are pa-\ntent-ineligible. We also agree with the district court’s\nconstruction of “network traffic data” and affirm the dis-\ntrict court’s grant of summary judgment of no anticipation.\nWe vacate and remand the district court’s denial of Cisco’s\nrenewed motion for judgment as a matter of law that Cisco\ndid not willfully infringe the asserted claims. Accordingly,\nwe vacate and remand the district court’s awards of en-\nhanced damages and attorneys’ fees. Finally, we affirm the\ndistrict court’s orders granting enhanced damages and on-\ngoing royalties.\n AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART,\n AND REMANDED\n COSTS\n No costs.\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\n Plaintiff-Appellee\n\n v.\n\n CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,\n Defendant-Appellant\n ______________________\n\n 2017-2223\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\nDistrict of Delaware in No. 1:13-cv-01534-SLR-SRF, Judge\nSue L. Robinson.\n ______________________\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Sri International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee\\n\\n v.\\n\\n CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,\\n Defendant-Appellant\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2223\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Delaware in No. 1:13-cv-01534-SLR-SRF, Judge\\nSue L. Robinson.\\n ______________________\\n\\n OPINION ISSUED: March 20, 2019\\n OPINION MODIFIED: July 12, 2019 ∗\\n ______________________\\n\\n FRANK SCHERKENBACH, Fish & Richardson, PC, Bos-\\nton, MA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by\\nPROSHANTO MUKHERJI; DAVID MICHAEL HOFFMAN, Austin,\\nTX; HOWARD G. POLLACK, Redwood City, CA; FRANCIS J.\\nALBERT, JOHN WINSTON THORNBURGH, San Diego, CA.\\n\\n\\n\\n ∗ This opinion has been modified and reissued fol-\\nlowing a petition for rehearing filed by Defendant-Appel-\\nlant.\\n\\n2 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and\\nDorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendant-appellant.\\nAlso represented by ANDREW J. DANFORD, LAUREN B.\\nFLETCHER, LOUIS W. TOMPROS.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\\n Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge STOLL.\\n Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge LOURIE.\\nSTOLL, Circuit Judge.\\n This is an appeal from a final judgment in a patent\\ncase. Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) appeals the district\\ncourt’s (1) denial of Cisco’s motion for summary judgment\\nof patent ineligibility under § 101, (2) construction of the\\nclaim term “network traffic data,” (3) grant of summary\\njudgment of no anticipation, and (4) denial of judgment as\\na matter of law of no willful infringement. Cisco also ap-\\npeals the district court’s grant of enhanced damages, attor-\\nneys’ fees, and ongoing royalties.\\n We affirm the district court’s denial of summary judg-\\nment of ineligibility, adopt its construction of “network\\ntraffic data,” and affirm its summary judgment of no antic-\\nipation. We vacate and remand the district court’s denial\\nof judgment as a matter of law of no willful infringement,\\nand therefore vacate and remand the district court’s en-\\nhancement of damages and award of attorneys’ fees. Fi-\\nnally, we affirm the district court’s award of ongoing\\nroyalties on post-verdict sales of products that were actu-\\nally found to infringe or are not colorably different. Accord-\\ningly, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand for\\nfurther proceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 3\\n\\n\\n\\n BACKGROUND\\n I\\n While the interconnectivity of computer networks facil-\\nitates access for authorized users, it also increases a net-\\nwork’s susceptibility to attacks from hackers, malware,\\nand other security threats. Some of these security threats\\ncan only be detected with information from multiple\\nsources. For instance, a hacker may try logging in to sev-\\neral computers or monitors in a network. The number of\\nlogin attempts for each computer may be below the thresh-\\nold to trigger an alert, making it difficult to detect such an\\nattack by looking at only a single monitor location in the\\nnetwork. In an attempt to solve this problem, SRI devel-\\noped the inventions claimed in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,484,203\\nand 6,711,615. The ’615 patent (titled “Network Surveil-\\nlance”) is a continuation of the ’203 patent (titled “Hierar-\\nchical Event Monitoring and Analysis”).\\n II\\n SRI had performed considerable research and develop-\\nment on network intrusion detection prior to filing the pa-\\ntents-in-suit. In fact, SRI’s Event Monitoring Enabling\\nResponses to Anomalous Live Disturbances (“EMERALD”)\\nproject had attracted considerable attention in this field.\\nThe Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research\\nProjects Agency, which helped fund EMERALD, called it a\\n“gem in the world of cyber defense” and “a quantum leap\\nimprovement over” previous technology. J.A. 1272–73\\nat 272:16–17, 273:7–9. In October 1997, SRI presented a\\npaper entitled “EMERALD: Event Monitoring Enabling\\nResponses to Anomalous Live Disturbances”\\n(“EMERALD 1997”) at the 20th National Information Sys-\\ntems Security Conference.\\n EMERALD 1997 is a conceptual overview of the\\nEMERALD system. It describes in detail SRI’s early re-\\nsearch in intrusion detection technology and outlines the\\n\\n4 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ndevelopment of next generation technology for detecting\\nnetwork anomalies. SRI Int’l Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,\\n647 F. Supp. 2d 323, 334 (D. Del. 2009). The parties do not\\ndispute that EMERALD 1997 constitutes prior art under\\n35 U.S.C. § 102(b). EMERALD 1997 is listed as a reference\\non the face of the ’615 patent.\\n III\\n The patents share a nearly identical specification and\\na priority date of November 9, 1998. At the summary judg-\\nment stage, SRI asserted claims 1–4, 14–16, and 18 of the\\n’615 patent and claims 1–4, 12–15, and 17 of the ’203 pa-\\ntent. By the time of trial, SRI had narrowed the asserted\\nclaims to claims 1, 2, 12, and 13 of the ’203 patent and\\nclaims 1, 2, 13, and 14 of the ’615 patent. The jury consid-\\nered only this narrower set of claims.\\n The parties identify different representative claims.\\nCisco proposes claim 1 of the ’203 patent, while SRI pro-\\nposes claim 1 of the ’615 patent. The claims are substan-\\ntially similar, as the minor differences between them are\\nnot material to any issue on appeal. As such, we adopt\\nSRI’s proposal and use ’615 patent claim 1 as the repre-\\nsentative claim. 1 It reads:\\n 1. A computer-automated method of hierarchical\\n event monitoring and analysis within an enterprise\\n network comprising:\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 The minor differences between the two claims are\\nin the detecting clause—claim 1 of the ’615 patent allows\\nfor network traffic data selected from “one or more of” the\\nenumerated categories, and includes two extra categories\\nin its list: “network connection acknowledgements” and\\n“network packets indicative of well-known network-service\\nprotocols.” Compare ’203 patent col. 14 ll. 19–35 (claim 1),\\nwith ’615 patent col. 15 ll. 2–21 (claim 1).\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 5\\n\\n\\n\\n deploying a plurality of network monitors in\\n the enterprise network;\\n detecting, by the network monitors, suspicious\\n network activity based on analysis of network\\n traffic data selected from one or more of the fol-\\n lowing categories: {network packet data trans-\\n fer commands, network packet data transfer\\n errors, network packet data volume, network\\n connection requests, network connection deni-\\n als, error codes included in a network packet,\\n network connection acknowledgements, and\\n network packets indicative of well-known net-\\n work-service protocols};\\n generating, by the monitors, reports of said\\n suspicious activity; and\\n automatically receiving and integrating the re-\\n ports of suspicious activity, by one or more hi-\\n erarchical monitors.\\n’615 patent col. 15 ll. 2–21.\\n After SRI sued Cisco for infringement of the ’615 pa-\\ntent and the ’203 patent, Cisco unsuccessfully moved for\\nsummary judgment on several issues, including that the\\nclaims are ineligible and that the EMERALD 1997 refer-\\nence anticipates the claims. 2 SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 The patents previously survived multiple anticipa-\\ntion challenges based on the EMERALD 1997 reference.\\nThe Patent Office considered EMERALD 1997 during the\\noriginal prosecution and issued the patents over it.\\nJ.A. 32734 ¶ 47; J.A. 32814–15 ¶ 207. In addition, during\\nthe two reexaminations, the Patent Office again considered\\nthe validity of the asserted claims over EMERALD 1997\\nand again found the claims valid. J.A. 32734 ¶ 47. Addi-\\ntionally, in SRI International Inc. v. Internet Security\\n\\n6 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nInc., 179 F. Supp. 3d 339 (D. Del. Apr. 11, 2016) (“Sum-\\nmary Judgment Op.”). The district court denied Cisco’s mo-\\ntions and instead sua sponte granted summary judgment\\nof no anticipation in SRI’s favor. 3 Id. at 369.\\n The court then held a jury trial on infringement, valid-\\nity, and willful infringement of claims 1, 2, 13, and 14 of\\nthe ’615 patent and claims 1, 2, 12, and 13 of the ’203 pa-\\ntent, as well as damages. The jury found that Cisco intru-\\nsion protection system (“IPS”) products, Cisco remote\\nmanagement services, Cisco IPS services, Sourcefire 4 IPS\\nproducts, and Sourcefire professional services directly and\\nindirectly infringed the asserted claims. The jury awarded\\nSRI a 3.5% reasonable royalty for a total of $23,660,000 in\\ncompensatory damages. The jury also found by clear and\\nconvincing evidence that Cisco’s infringement was willful.\\n After post-trial briefing, the district court denied\\nCisco’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willfulness. SRI\\n\\n\\nSystems, Inc., a jury found the patents not anticipated by\\nEMERALD 1997. 647 F. Supp. 2d at 350. The district\\ncourt denied JMOL, concluding that the verdict was sup-\\nported by expert testimony that EMERALD 1997 failed to\\ndisclose the claim limitation at issue. Id. We affirmed\\nwithout opinion. SRI Int’l Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,\\n401 F. App’x 530 (Fed. Cir. 2010).\\n 3 The parties disputed only whether\\nEMERALD 1997 discloses detection of any of the network\\ntraffic data categories listed in claim 1 of the ’203 and\\n’615 patents and whether EMERALD 1997 is enabled.\\nOne of the claimed categories of network traffic is “network\\nconnection requests,” which Cisco asserts is disclosed by\\nEMERALD 1997.\\n 4 “Sourcefire” is a network security company that\\nCisco acquired in 2013. J.A. 2467–68. Cisco now markets\\nnetwork security products and services under the\\nSourcefire name.\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 7\\n\\n\\n\\nInt’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 254 F. Supp. 3d 680, 717\\n(D. Del. 2017) (“Post-Trial Motions Op.”). Based on the\\nwillfulness verdict, the district court determined that\\n“some enhancement is appropriate given Cisco’s litigation\\nconduct,” the “fact that Cisco lost on all issues during sum-\\nmary judgment,” and “its apparent disdain for SRI and its\\nbusiness model.” Id. at 723. The court then doubled the\\ndamages award. It also granted SRI’s motion for attorneys’\\nfees, compulsory license, and prejudgment interest.\\n Cisco appeals the district court’s claim construction\\nand denial of summary judgment of ineligibility, 5 as well\\nas its grant of summary judgment of no anticipation, en-\\nhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and ongoing royalties.\\nWe have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).\\n DISCUSSION\\n I\\n We review de novo whether a claim is drawn to patent-\\neligible subject matter. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d\\n1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Intellectual Ventures I\\nLLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1338\\n(Fed. Cir. 2017)). Section 101 defines patent-eligible\\n\\n\\n 5 We may review this denial of summary judgment\\nbecause “a denial of a motion for summary judgment may\\nbe appealed, even after a final judgment at trial, if the mo-\\ntion involved a purely legal question and the factual dis-\\nputes resolved at trial do not affect the resolution of that\\nlegal question.” United Techs. Corp. v. Chromalloy Gas\\nTurbine Corp., 189 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing\\nWolfgang v. Mid-Am. Motorsports, Inc., 111 F.3d 1515,\\n1521 (10th Cir. 1997); Rekhi v. Wildwood Indus., Inc.,\\n61 F.3d 1313, 1318 (7th Cir. 1995)). Neither party con-\\ntends that fact issues arise in the patent-eligibility analysis\\nin this case. Therefore, we may review the purely legal\\nquestion of patent eligibility.\\n\\n8 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nsubject matter as “any new and useful process, machine,\\nmanufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and\\nuseful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of na-\\nture, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas, however, are\\nnot patentable. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prome-\\ntheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70–71 (2012) (citing Dia-\\nmond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)).\\n To determine whether a patent claims ineligible sub-\\nject matter, the Supreme Court has established a two-step\\nframework. First, we must determine whether the claims\\nat issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept such as\\nan abstract idea. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.\\n208, 217 (2014). Second, if the claims are directed to an\\nabstract idea, we must “consider the elements of each claim\\nboth individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to deter-\\nmine whether the additional elements ‘transform the na-\\nture of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id.\\n(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79). To transform an abstract\\nidea into a patent-eligible application, the claims must do\\n“more than simply stat[e] the abstract idea while adding\\nthe words ‘apply it.’” Id. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.\\nat 72 (internal alterations omitted)).\\n We resolve the eligibility issue at Alice step one and\\nconclude that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea.\\nSee Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337\\n(Fed. Cir. 2016). The district court concluded that the\\nclaims are more complex than merely reciting the perfor-\\nmance of a known business practice on the Internet and are\\nbetter understood as being necessarily rooted in computer\\ntechnology in order to solve a specific problem in the realm\\nof computer networks. Summary Judgment Op.,\\n179 F. Supp. 3d at 353–54 (citing ’203 patent col. 1 ll. 37–\\n40; DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,\\n1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). We agree. The claims are directed\\nto using a specific technique—using a plurality of network\\nmonitors that each analyze specific types of data on the\\nnetwork and integrating reports from the monitors—to\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 9\\n\\n\\n\\nsolve a technological problem arising in computer net-\\nworks: identifying hackers or potential intruders into the\\nnetwork.\\n Contrary to Cisco’s assertion, the claims are not di-\\nrected to just analyzing data from multiple sources to de-\\ntect suspicious activity. Instead, the claims are directed to\\nan improvement in computer network technology. Indeed,\\nrepresentative claim 1 recites using network monitors to\\ndetect suspicious network activity based on analysis of net-\\nwork traffic data, generating reports of that suspicious ac-\\ntivity, and integrating those reports using hierarchical\\nmonitors. ’615 patent col. 15 ll. 2–21. The “focus of the\\nclaims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer\\ncapabilities”—that is, providing a network defense system\\nthat monitors network traffic in real-time to automatically\\ndetect large-scale attacks. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36.\\n The specification bolsters our conclusion that the\\nclaims are directed to a technological solution to a techno-\\nlogical problem. The specification explains that, while\\ncomputer networks “offer users ease and efficiency in ex-\\nchanging information,” ’615 patent col. 1 ll. 28–29, “the\\nvery interoperability and sophisticated integration of tech-\\nnology that make networks such valuable assets also make\\nthem vulnerable to attack, and make dependence on net-\\nworks a potential liability.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 36–39. The\\nspecification further teaches that, in conventional net-\\nworks, seemingly localized triggering events can have glob-\\nally disastrous effects on widely distributed systems—like\\nthe 1980 ARPAnet collapse and the 1990 AT&T collapse.\\nSee id. at col. 1 ll. 43–47. The specification explains that\\nthe claimed invention is directed to solving these weak-\\nnesses in conventional networks and provides “a frame-\\nwork for the recognition of more global threats to\\ninterdomain connectivity, including coordinated attempts\\nto infiltrate or destroy connectivity across an entire net-\\nwork enterprise.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 44–48.\\n\\n10 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Cisco argues that the claims are directed to an abstract\\nidea for three primary reasons. First, Cisco argues that the\\nclaims are analogous to those in Electric Power Group, LLC\\nv. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and are\\nsimply directed to generic steps required to collect and an-\\nalyze data. We disagree. The Electric Power claims were\\ndrawn to using computers as tools to solve a power grid\\nproblem, rather than improving the functionality of com-\\nputers and computer networks themselves. Id. at 1354.\\nWe conclude that the claims are more like the patent-eligi-\\nble claims in DDR Holdings. In DDR, we emphasized that\\nthe claims were directed to more than an abstract idea that\\nmerely required a “computer network operating in its nor-\\nmal, expected manner.” 773 F.3d at 1258. Here, the claims\\nactually prevent the normal, expected operation of a con-\\nventional computer network. Like the claims in DDR, the\\nclaimed technology “overrides the routine and conventional\\nsequence of events” by detecting suspicious network activ-\\nity, generating reports of suspicious activity, and receiving\\nand integrating the reports using one or more hierarchical\\nmonitors. Id.\\n Second, Cisco argues that the invention does not in-\\nvolve “an improvement to computer functionality itself.”\\nEnfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. In Alice, the Supreme Court ad-\\nvised that claims directed to independently abstract ideas\\nthat use computers as tools are still abstract. 573 U.S.\\nat 222–23. However, the claims here are not directed to\\nusing a computer as a tool—that is, automating a conven-\\ntional idea on a computer. Rather, the representative\\nclaim improves the technical functioning of the computer\\nand computer networks by reciting a specific technique for\\nimproving computer network security.\\n Cisco also submits that the asserted claims are so gen-\\neral that they encompass steps that people can “go through\\nin their minds,” allegedly confirming that they are directed\\nto an abstract concept. Appellant Br. 27–28 (citing Capital\\nOne, 850 F.3d at 1340; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 11\\n\\n\\n\\nSymantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Cy-\\nberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,\\n1371 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). We disagree. This is not the type\\nof human activity that § 101 is meant to exclude. Indeed,\\nwe tend to agree with SRI that the human mind is not\\nequipped to detect suspicious activity by using network\\nmonitors and analyzing network packets as recited by the\\nclaims.\\n Because we conclude that the claims are not directed\\nto an abstract idea under step one of the Alice analysis, we\\nneed not reach step two. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339. Ac-\\ncordingly, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment\\nthat the claims are patent-eligible.\\n II\\n A district court’s claim construction based solely on in-\\ntrinsic evidence is a legal question that we review de novo.\\nSee Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831,\\n841 (2015). Claim construction seeks to ascribe the “ordi-\\nnary and customary meaning” to claim terms as a person\\nof ordinary skill in the art would have understood them at\\nthe time of invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d\\n1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics\\nCorp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.\\n1996)). “[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guid-\\nance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Id.\\nat 1314. In addition, “the person of ordinary skill in the art\\nis deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of\\nthe particular claim in which the disputed term appears,\\nbut in the context of the entire patent, including the speci-\\nfication.” Id. at 1313.\\n The district court construed “[n]etwork traffic data” to\\nmean “data obtained from direct examination of network\\npackets.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Dell Inc., No. CV13-1534-SLR,\\n2015 WL 2265756, at *1–2 (D. Del. May 14, 2015). After\\nreviewing the parties’ pleadings on summary judgment,\\nthe district court determined that its construction would\\n\\n12 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nbenefit from clarification. The district court explained that\\n“[t]o say that the data ‘is obtained from direct examination\\nof network packets’ means to differentiate the original\\nsource of the data, not how or where the data is ana-\\nlyzed. . . . The fact that the data may be stored before anal-\\nysis is performed on the data does not detract from its\\nlineage.” Summary Judgment Op., 179 F. Supp. 3d at 363.\\nThe district court explicitly rejected the opinion of Cisco’s\\nexpert, Dr. Clark, that the court’s claim construction\\nshould require that the analysis of data obtained from net-\\nwork packets take place without any further manipulation\\nwhatsoever. Id.\\n On appeal, Cisco offers a more nuanced construction,\\nasserting that term should instead be construed as “detect-\\ning suspicious network activity based on ‘direct examina-\\ntion of network packets,’ where such ‘direct examination’\\ndoes not include merely examining data that has been ob-\\ntained, generated, or gleaned from network packets.” Ap-\\npellant Br. 42. According to Cisco, based on SRI’s express\\nprosecution disclaimer during reexamination, the claims\\nrequire detecting suspicious activity based on “direct exam-\\nination” of network packets, not data “generated” or\\n“gleaned” from packets. Cisco would thus construe the\\nterm to exclude a process that decodes the network packet.\\n We conclude that Cisco’s proposed construction goes\\ntoo far in limiting the amount of preprocessing encom-\\npassed by the claim. The specification shows that prepro-\\ncessing is a contemplated and expected part of the claimed\\ninvention. Indeed, the specification specifically mentions\\ndifferent forms of preprocessing network packets prior to\\nexamination, including decryption (’615 patent col. 3\\nll. 61–63), parsing (id. at col. 8 ll. 10–12), and decoding (id.\\nat col. 8 ll. 7–9).\\n Cisco’s argument that SRI disclaimed preprocessing\\nduring reexamination of its patents is also not persuasive.\\nTo invoke argument-based estoppel, “the prosecution\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 13\\n\\n\\n\\nhistory must evince a ‘clear and unmistakable surrender’”\\nof this kind of preprocessing. Deering Precision Instru-\\nments v. Vector Distrib. Sys., 347 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir.\\n2003) (quoting Eagle Comtronics, Inc. v. Arrow Commc’n\\nLabs., Inc., 305 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also\\nKrippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir.\\n2012) (applying prosecution history disclaimer from reex-\\namination proceedings). Here, SRI’s statements during\\nreexamination reflect that SRI drew the line between what\\ndoes and does not comprise “direct examination” by exclud-\\ning information derived from network packet data (for ex-\\nample, network traffic measures and network traffic\\nstatistics). At the same time, SRI explained that “direct\\nexamination” includes the data from which the network\\ntraffic measures and network traffic statistics are derived\\n(that is, the data in the network packets). For example,\\nSRI explained that the specification:\\n [D]emonstrates that the term “network traffic\\n data” requires information obtained by direct\\n packet examination by using the distinctly differ-\\n ent terms “network traffic measures” and “network\\n traffic statistics” when discussing information de-\\n rived from network traffic observation, as com-\\n pared to the data from which the measures and\\n statistics are derived.\\nBrief for the Patentee on Appeal at 7, In re Porras, Reexam\\nNo. 90/008,125 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 14, 2010) (citing ’203 patent\\ncol. 4 ll. 55–60 (discussing “network traffic statistics”) and\\ncol. 5 ll. 28–30 (discussing “network traffic measures”)).\\n We read SRI’s statements during reexamination as\\nsimply explaining that “network traffic statistics,” such as\\nnumber of packets and number of kilobytes transferred,\\nare statistics derived from the network packet data—not\\nthe underlying data itself. SRI did not argue that the ac-\\ntual data underlying the measures and statistics—the data\\nin the network packets—could not be subject to direct\\n\\n14 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nexamination. Nor did SRI take the position that “direct ex-\\namination” must take place before any or all processing.\\nSRI did not mention processing at all during reexamina-\\ntion. Moreover, as the specification makes clear, the sys-\\ntem may need to decrypt, parse, or decode the data\\npackets—all forms of preprocessing—in order to directly\\nexamine the network packet data underlying the network\\ntraffic statistics.\\n We hold that SRI’s statements in the prosecution his-\\ntory do not invoke a clear and unmistakable surrender of\\nall preprocessing, including decryption, decoding, and\\nparsing. Accordingly, we agree with the district court’s\\nconstruction of “network traffic data” to mean “data ob-\\ntained from direct examination of network packets.”\\n III\\n We also hold that the district court did not err in grant-\\ning summary judgment that the asserted claims are not an-\\nticipated by SRI’s own EMERALD 1997 reference. We\\nreview the district court’s summary judgment of no antici-\\npation under regional circuit law. See MAG Aerospace In-\\ndus., Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 816 F.3d 1374, 1376\\n(Fed. Cir. 2016). The Third Circuit reviews a grant of sum-\\nmary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the\\ndistrict court. See Gonzalez v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Homeland\\nSec., 678 F.3d 254, 257 (3d Cir. 2012). Summary judgment\\nis appropriate when, drawing all justifiable inferences in\\nthe nonmovant’s favor, there exists no genuine issue of ma-\\nterial fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a mat-\\nter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty\\nLobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Anticipation re-\\nquires that a single prior art reference disclose each and\\nevery limitation of the claimed invention, either expressly\\nor inherently. See Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.,\\n814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).\\n EMERALD 1997 discloses a tool for tracking malicious\\nactivity across large networks. The question before us is\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 15\\n\\n\\n\\nwhether the district court erred in concluding on summary\\njudgment that EMERALD 1997 does not disclose detection\\nof any of the network traffic data categories listed in\\nclaim 1 of the ’203 and ’615 patents. The Patent Office con-\\nsidered EMERALD 1997 during the original examination\\nof the ’615 patent, and the patentability of the claims over\\nthe reference was confirmed in multiple reexamination and\\nlitigation proceedings. Indeed, during reexamination, the\\nPatent Office accepted SRI’s argument that the claim lim-\\nitation requires detecting suspicious activity based on “di-\\nrect examination” of network packets to distinguish\\nEMERALD 1997. J.A. 26402 (“[T]he closest prior art of\\nrecord, Emerald 1997, fails to teach direct examination of\\npacket data.”); J.A. 27101 (same).\\n EMERALD 1997 describes detecting a DNS/NFS at-\\ntack in “real-time.” J.A. 5004. To achieve this,\\nEMERALD 1997 explains:\\n The subscription list field is an important facility\\n for gaining visibility into malicious or anomalous\\n activity outside the immediate environment of an\\n EMERALD monitor. The most obvious examples\\n where relationships are important involve interde-\\n pendencies among network services that make lo-\\n cal policy decisions. Consider, for example, the\\n interdependencies between access checks per-\\n formed during network file system [“NFS”] mount-\\n ing and the IP mapping of the DNS service. An\\n unexpected mount monitored by the network file\\n system service may be responded to differently if\\n the DNS monitor informs the network file system\\n monitor of suspicious updates to the mount re-\\n quester’s DNS mapping.\\nJ.A. 5008. EMERALD 1997 further explains that:\\n Above the service layer, signature engines scan the\\n aggregate of intrusion reports from service moni-\\n tors in an attempt to detect more global\\n\\n16 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n coordinated attack scenarios or scenarios that ex-\\n ploit interdependencies among network services.\\n The DNS/NFS attack discussed [above] is one such\\n example of an aggregate attack scenario.\\nJ.A. 5010.\\n Cisco’s expert submitted a report concluding that a per-\\nson of ordinary skill in the art would understand from this\\ndisclosure that “monitoring specific network services, such\\nas HTTP, FTP, network file systems, finger, Kerberos, and\\nSNMP would require detecting and analyzing packets in-\\ndicative of those well-known network service protocols, one\\nof the enumerated categories in claim 1 of the ’615 patent.”\\nJ.A. 30347 (emphasis added). During deposition, however,\\nCisco’s expert retreated from this position, admitting that\\na person of ordinary skill reading EMERALD 1997 would\\nhave understood that it was not necessary to directly ex-\\namine the packets, although that would be “one very good\\nway” to prevent attacks. J.A. 50040 at 159:12–21.\\n On this record, we conclude that summary judgment\\nwas appropriate. EMERALD 1997 does not expressly dis-\\nclose directly examining network packets as required by\\nthe claims—especially not to obtain data about network\\nconnection requests. Nor does Cisco’s expert testimony cre-\\nate a genuine issue of fact on this issue. Rather, we agree\\nwith the district court that Cisco’s expert’s testimony is\\nboth inconsistent and “based on [] multiple layers of suppo-\\nsition.” Summary Judgment Op., 179 F. Supp. 3d at 358.\\nBecause the evidence does not support express or inherent\\ndisclosure of direct examination of packet data, we con-\\nclude that the district court did not err in holding that\\nthere was no genuine issue of fact regarding whether\\nEMERALD 1997 disclosed analyzing the specific enumer-\\nated types of network traffic data recited in the claims.\\n Cisco next argues that the district court erred by grant-\\ning summary judgment for SRI sua sponte despite SRI’s\\nfailure to move for such relief. We disagree. Under Third\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 17\\n\\n\\n\\nCircuit law, a district court may properly enter summary\\njudgment sua sponte “so long as the losing party was on\\nnotice that she had to come forward with all of her evi-\\ndence.” Gibson v. Mayor & Council of City of Wilmington,\\n355 F.3d 215, 222 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Celotex Corp. v.\\nCatrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986)). By filing its own motion\\nfor summary judgment, Cisco was on notice that anticipa-\\ntion was before the court, and Cisco had the opportunity to\\nput forth its best evidence. Additionally, SRI did argue, in\\nopposition to Cisco’s summary judgment motion, that the\\ndistrict court should outright reject Cisco’s assertion of in-\\nvalidity. J.A. 31650 (“Cisco’s assertion of invalidity should\\nbe rejected . . . .”). Indeed, SRI expressly took the position\\nthat EMERALD 1997 “does not anticipate any claim of the\\n’203 or ’615 patents.” J.A. 31678. Thus, any notice require-\\nment was satisfied because Cisco itself indicated that the\\nissue was ripe for summary adjudication and SRI took the\\nposition that the claims were not anticipated. Accordingly,\\nwe see no error in the sua sponte nature of the district\\ncourt’s order and we affirm the summary judgment of no\\nanticipation.\\n IV\\n Cisco also appeals the district court’s denial of JMOL\\nthat it did not willfully infringe the asserted patents be-\\ncause the jury’s willfulness finding is not supported by sub-\\nstantial evidence. We agree that the jury’s finding that\\nCisco willfully infringed the patents-in-suit prior to receiv-\\ning notice thereof is not supported by substantial evidence\\nand therefore vacate and remand.\\n We review decisions on motions for JMOL under the\\nlaw of the regional circuit. Energy Transp. Grp. Inc. v. Wil-\\nliam Demant Holding A/S, 697 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir.\\n2012). The Third Circuit reviews district court decisions\\non such motions de novo. Acumed LLC v. Adv. Surgical\\nServs., Inc., 561 F.3d 199, 211 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Mon-\\nteiro v. City of Elizabeth, 436 F.3d 397, 404 (3d Cir. 2006)).\\n\\n18 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nIn the Third Circuit, a “court may grant a judgment as a\\nmatter of law contrary to the verdict only if ‘the record is\\ncritically deficient of the minimum quantum of evidence’ to\\nsustain the verdict.” Id. (citing Gomez v. Allegheny Health\\nServs., Inc., 71 F.3d 1079, 1083 (3d Cir. 1995)). The court\\nshould grant JMOL “sparingly” and “only if, viewing the\\nevidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and\\ngiving it the advantage of every fair and reasonable infer-\\nence, there is insufficient evidence from which a jury rea-\\nsonably could find liability.” Marra v. Phila. Hous. Auth.,\\n497 F.3d 286, 300 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Moyer v. United\\nDominion Indus., Inc., 473 F.3d 532, 545 n.8 (3d Cir.\\n2007)).\\n As the Supreme Court stated in Halo, “[t]he sort of con-\\nduct warranting enhanced damages has been variously de-\\nscribed in our cases as willful, wanton, malicious, bad-\\nfaith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or—in-\\ndeed—characteristic of a pirate.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse\\nElecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1932 (2016). While district\\ncourts have discretion in deciding whether or not behavior\\nrises to that standard, such findings “are generally re-\\nserved for egregious cases of culpable behavior.” Id. In-\\ndeed, as Justice Breyer emphasized in his concurrence, it\\nis the circumstances that transform simple “intentional or\\nknowing” infringement into egregious, sanctionable behav-\\nior, and that makes all the difference. Id. at 1936 (Breyer,\\nJ., concurring). A patentee need only show by a preponder-\\nance of the evidence the facts that support a finding of will-\\nful infringement. Id. at 1934.\\n In denying Cisco’s motion for JMOL on willfulness, the\\ndistrict court concluded that the jury’s willfulness determi-\\nnation was supported by two evidentiary bases. First, the\\ncourt identified evidence that “key Cisco employees did not\\nread the patents-in-suit until their depositions.” Post-Trial\\nMotions Op., 254 F. Supp. 3d at 717. Second, the court\\nidentified evidence that Cisco designed the products and\\nservices in an infringing manner and that Cisco instructed\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 19\\n\\n\\n\\nits customers to use the products and services in an infring-\\ning manner. Based on these two facts, the district court\\ndenied Cisco’s renewed motion for JMOL on willfulness,\\nstating that “[v]iewing the record in the light most favora-\\nble to SRI, substantial evidence supports the jury’s subjec-\\ntive willfulness verdict.” Id.\\n On appeal, SRI identifies additional evidence that pur-\\nportedly supports the jury’s willfulness verdict. Specifi-\\ncally, SRI presented evidence that Cisco expressed interest\\nin the patented technology and met with SRI’s inventor in\\n2000 before developing its infringing products. J.A. 1484–\\n86; J.A. 5027. Additionally, SRI submitted evidence that\\nCisco received a notice letter from SRI’s licensing consult-\\nant on May 8, 2012, informing Cisco of the asserted patents\\n(a year before SRI filed the complaint). Finally, like the\\ndistrict court, SRI makes much of the fact that “key engi-\\nneers” did not look at SRI’s patents until SRI took their\\ndepositions during this litigation. In particular, Cisco en-\\ngineers Martin Roesch and James Kasper did not look at\\nthe patent until their depositions in 2015.\\n Even accepting this evidence as true and weighing all\\ninferences in SRI’s favor, we conclude that the record is in-\\nsufficient to establish that Cisco’s conduct rose to the level\\nof wanton, malicious, and bad-faith behavior required for\\nwillful infringement. First, it is undisputed that the Cisco\\nemployees who did not read the patents-in-suit until their\\ndepositions were engineers without legal training. Given\\nCisco’s size and resources, it was unremarkable that the\\nengineers—as opposed to Cisco’s in-house or outside coun-\\nsel—did not analyze the patents-in-suit themselves. The\\nother rationale offered by the district court—that Cisco de-\\nsigned the products and services in an infringing manner\\nand that Cisco instructed its customers to use the products\\nand services in an infringing manner—is nothing more\\nthan proof that Cisco directly infringed and induced others\\nto infringe the patents-in-suit.\\n\\n20 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n It is undisputed that Cisco did not know of SRI’s patent\\nuntil May 8, 2012, when SRI sent its notice letter to Cisco.\\nOral Arg. at 23:46, available at http://oralarguments.cafc.\\nuscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2017-2223.mp3. It is also un-\\ndisputed that this notice letter was sent years after Cisco\\nindependently developed the accused systems and first sold\\nthem in 2005 (Cisco) and 2007 (Sourcefire). As SRI admits,\\nthe patents had not issued when the parties met in\\nMay 2000. Indeed, the patent application for the parent\\n’203 patent was not even filed until several months after\\nthe parties met. Thus, Cisco could not have been aware of\\nthe patent application.\\n While the jury heard evidence that Cisco was aware of\\nthe patents in May 2012, before filing of the lawsuit, we do\\nnot see how the record supports a willfulness finding going\\nback to 2000. As the Supreme Court recently observed,\\n“culpability is generally measured against the knowledge\\nof the actor at the time of the challenged conduct.” Halo,\\n136 S. Ct. at 1933. Similarly, Cisco’s allegedly aggressive\\nlitigation tactics cannot support a finding of willful in-\\nfringement going back to 2000, especially when the litiga-\\ntion did not start until 2012. Finally, Cisco’s decision not\\nto seek an advice-of-counsel defense is legally irrelevant\\nunder 35 U.S.C. § 298.\\n Viewing the record in the light most favorable to SRI,\\nthe jury’s verdict of willful infringement before May 8, 2012\\nis not supported by substantial evidence. Given the gen-\\neral verdict form, we presume the jury also found that\\nCisco willfully infringed after May 8, 2012. When review-\\ning a denial of JMOL, “where there is a black box jury ver-\\ndict, as is the case here, we presume the jury resolved\\nunderlying factual disputes in favor of the verdict winner\\nand leave those presumed findings undisturbed if sup-\\nported by substantial evidence.” Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bom-\\nbardier Recreational Prods. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1358\\n(Fed. Cir. 2017), (citing WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d\\n1317, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 143\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 21\\n\\n\\n\\n(2018). We leave it to the district court to decide in the first\\ninstance whether the jury’s presumed finding of willful in-\\nfringement after May 8, 2012 is supported by substantial\\nevidence. 6 In so doing, the court should bear in mind the\\nstandard for willful infringement, as well as the above\\nanalysis regarding SRI’s evidence of willfulness. Accord-\\ningly, we vacate and remand the district court’s denial of\\nCisco’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willful infringe-\\nment.\\n Cisco also argues that the district court abused its dis-\\ncretion by doubling damages. Enhanced damages under\\n§ 284 are predicated on a finding of willful infringement.\\nBecause we conclude that the jury’s finding of willfulness\\nbefore 2012 was not supported by substantial evidence, we\\ndo not reach the propriety of the district court’s award of\\nenhanced damages. Instead, we vacate the award of en-\\nhanced damages and remand for further consideration\\nalong with willfulness.\\n V\\n We next turn to the district court’s award of attorneys’\\nfees under § 285, which we vacate and remand for further\\nconsideration. Under § 285, a “court in exceptional cases\\nmay award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing\\n\\n\\n 6 We recognize that, ideally, it should not fall to the\\ndistrict court to determine when, if ever, willful infringe-\\nment began through the mechanism of JMOL. Rather, the\\nquestion of when willful infringement began is a fact issue\\nthat would have been best presented to the jury in a special\\nverdict form with appropriate jury instructions. Better yet,\\nperhaps SRI could have recognized the shortcomings in its\\ncase and presented a more limited case of willful infringe-\\nment from 2012 onwards. Or perhaps Cisco could have\\nfiled a motion for summary judgment of no willful infringe-\\nment prior to May 8, 2012.\\n\\n22 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nparty.” An “exceptional” case under § 285 is “one that\\nstands out from others with respect to the substantive\\nstrength of a party’s litigating position (considering both\\nthe governing law and the facts of the case) or the unrea-\\nsonable manner in which the case was litigated.” Octane\\nFitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545,\\n554 (2014). The party seeking fees must prove that the\\ncase is exceptional by a preponderance of the evidence, and\\nthe district court makes the exceptional case determination\\non a case-by-case basis considering the totality of the cir-\\ncumstances. See id. at 554, 557.\\n We review a district court’s grant or denial of attorneys’\\nfees for an abuse of discretion, which is a highly deferential\\nstandard of review. Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt.\\nSys., Inc., 572 U.S. 559, 564 (2014); Bayer CropScience AG\\nv. Dow AgroSciences LLC, 851 F.3d 1302, 1306 (Fed. Cir.\\n2017) (citing Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Quickturn Design\\nSys., Inc., 150 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). To meet\\nthe abuse-of-discretion standard, the appellant must show\\nthat the district court made “a clear error of judgment in\\nweighing relevant factors or in basing its decision on an er-\\nror of law or on clearly erroneous factual findings.” Bayer,\\n851 F.3d at 1306 (quoting Mentor Graphics, 150 F.3d\\nat 1377); see also Highmark, 572 U.S. at 563 n.2.\\n We see no such error in the district court’s determina-\\ntion that this was an exceptional case. The district court\\nfound:\\n There can be no doubt from even a cursory review\\n of the record that Cisco pursued litigation about as\\n aggressively as the court has seen in its judicial ex-\\n perience. While defending a client aggressively is\\n understandable, if not laudable, in the case at bar,\\n Cisco crossed the line in several regards.\\nPost-Trial Motions Op., 254 F. Supp. 3d at 722.\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 23\\n\\n\\n\\n The district court further explained that “Cisco’s litiga-\\ntion strategies in the case at bar created a substantial\\namount of work for both SRI and the court, much of which\\nwork was needlessly repetitive or irrelevant or frivolous.”\\nId. at 723 (footnotes omitted). Indeed, the district court in-\\nventoried Cisco’s aggressive tactics, including maintaining\\nnineteen invalidity theories until the eve of trial but only\\npresenting two at trial and pursuing defenses at trial that\\nwere contrary to the court’s rulings or Cisco’s internal doc-\\numents. Id. at 722. Nevertheless, the district court relied\\nin part on the fact that the jury found that Cisco’s infringe-\\nment was willful in its determination to exercise its discre-\\ntion pursuant to § 285 to award SRI its attorneys’ fees and\\ncosts. Id. at 723. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s\\naward of attorneys’ fees and remand for further considera-\\ntion along with willfulness.\\n We take no issue with the district court’s award of at-\\ntorneys’ fees at the attorneys’ billing rates without adjust-\\ning them to Delaware rates. At the same time, however,\\nthe district court erred in granting all of SRI’s fees. Sec-\\ntion 285 permits a prevailing party to recover reasonable\\nattorneys’ fees, but not fees for hours expended by counsel\\nthat were “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unneces-\\nsary.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). We\\naccordingly conclude that the district court should have re-\\nduced SRI’s total hours to eliminate clear mistakes. For\\nexample, one billing entry reads “DON’T RELEASE,\\nCLIENT MATTER NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.”\\nJ.A. 32384. Accordingly, should the district court award\\nattorneys’ fees on remand, it must remove attorney hours\\nclearly included by mistake in its calculation of reasonable\\nattorneys’ fees.\\n VI\\n We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s\\ngrant of an ongoing royalty. Whitserve, LLC v. Comput.\\nPackages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10, 35 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, the\\n\\n24 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ndistrict court did not abuse its discretion in awarding “a\\n3.5% compulsory license for all post-verdict sales.” Post-\\nTrial Motions Op., 254 F. Supp. 3d at 724. The district\\ncourt’s ongoing royalty rate equals the rate found by the\\njury and the base is limited to the “accused products and\\nservices.” J.A. 182.\\n On appeal, Cisco argues that the district court abused\\nits discretion in awarding the 3.5% ongoing royalty on “all\\npost-verdict sales” without considering Cisco’s design-\\narounds. According to Cisco, the court was obligated to as-\\nsess whether Cisco’s redesigned products and services were\\nmore than colorably different from those products and ser-\\nvices adjudicated at trial, and if not, whether those rede-\\nsigned products and services infringe. To this end, Cisco\\nmoved to supplement its post-trial briefing with declara-\\ntions describing its redesign efforts. Cisco argues that the\\ndistrict court abused its discretion by denying its motion to\\nsupplement. 7 We disagree. The district court properly ex-\\nercised its discretion in denying Cisco’s motion to supple-\\nment the record regarding alleged post-verdict design-\\naround activity. Cisco did not redesign its products until\\nafter trial, and Cisco did not file its motion to supplement\\nuntil after completion of post-trial briefing. Given the\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 Finally, Cisco argues that, in the same order in\\nwhich the court stated that “[t]here are no post-verdict roy-\\nalties,” the court awarded a post-verdict royalty—an inter-\\nnal inconsistency. J.A. 175. We do not ascribe weight to\\nthe apparent clerical error creating the inconsistency. The\\ndistrict court’s final judgment order is clear that “Cisco\\nshall pay a 3.5% compulsory license on all post-verdict\\nsales of the accused products and services.” J.A. 182. To\\nthe extent that clear statement conflicts with the single\\nsentence in the memorandum opinion, we think the court\\nmade its intentions clear in its final judgment and we see\\nno error by the district court.\\n\\nSRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC. 25\\n\\n\\n\\nstage of the proceedings and SRI’s opposition, the trial\\ncourt acted within its discretion when denying Cisco’s mo-\\ntion to supplement.\\n To the extent the district court’s order is unclear—and\\nwe think it is not—we reconfirm that the ongoing royalty\\non post-verdict sales is limited to products that were actu-\\nally found to infringe and products that are not colorably\\ndifferent. We discern no error in the district court’s deter-\\nmination that Cisco’s submissions were untimely. Never-\\ntheless, we acknowledge that the district court has not yet\\ndetermined whether products and services that were not\\naccused (that is, changed after the jury verdict) are colora-\\nbly different for purposes of ongoing royalty calculations.\\nSuch an issue could be resolved in a future proceeding.\\n CONCLUSION\\n For the reasons above, we affirm the district court’s de-\\nnial of summary judgment that the asserted claims are pa-\\ntent-ineligible. We also agree with the district court’s\\nconstruction of “network traffic data” and affirm the dis-\\ntrict court’s grant of summary judgment of no anticipation.\\nWe vacate and remand the district court’s denial of Cisco’s\\nrenewed motion for judgment as a matter of law that Cisco\\ndid not willfully infringe the asserted claims. Accordingly,\\nwe vacate and remand the district court’s awards of en-\\nhanced damages and attorneys’ fees. Finally, we affirm the\\ndistrict court’s orders granting enhanced damages and on-\\ngoing royalties.\\n AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART,\\n AND REMANDED\\n COSTS\\n No costs.\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee\\n\\n v.\\n\\n CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,\\n Defendant-Appellant\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2017-2223\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Delaware in No. 1:13-cv-01534-SLR-SRF, Judge\\nSue L. Robinson.\\n ______________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3494,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4639126,"string":"4,639,126"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Appellant v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD., Appellee"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"2018-2007; 2018-2012"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Newman, Schall, O'Malley\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"O'MALLEY, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-2007, 2018-2012\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2017-\\n00099, IPR2017-00100.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 12, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n STEPHEN BLAKE KINNAIRD, Paul Hastings LLP, Wash-\\nington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by\\nNAVEEN MODI, QUADEER AHMED, JOSEPH PALYS, IGOR\\nVICTOR TIMOFEYEV, MICHAEL WOLFE, DANIEL ZEILBERGER.\\n\\n MICHAEL NEWMAN, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky\\nand Popeo, PC, Boston, MA, argued for appellee. Also rep-\\nresented by WILLIAM MEUNIER, KONGSIK KIM, MICHAEL\\nTIMOTHY RENAUD.\\n ______________________\\n\\nBefore NEWMAN, SCHALL, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f2 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nO’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.\\n In two inter partes review proceedings requested by\\nSamsung, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”)\\nupheld all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 8,917,772 (“the\\n’772 patent”), which is owned by Infobridge. The Board up-\\nheld the claims because it found that Samsung failed to\\nshow that a certain prior art reference was publicly acces-\\nsible before the ’772 patent’s critical date and thus could\\nnot be considered prior art. Samsung appeals the Board’s\\ndecisions, insisting that it has standing to do so and argu-\\ning, among other things, that the Board applied the wrong\\nlegal standard in assessing public accessibility. We agree\\nwith Samsung on both issues. We therefore vacate the\\nBoard’s decisions and remand for further consideration.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n A. The Technology\\n The ’772 Patent, titled “Method of Constructing Merge\\nList,” generally relates to encoding and decoding video\\ndata. Both parties agree for purposes of this appeal that\\nthe patented methods are essential to the High Efficiency\\nVideo Coding standard (“the H.265 standard”).\\n B. The Prior Art\\n The sole prior art reference at issue on appeal is Work-\\ning Draft 4 of the H.265 standard (“the WD4 reference”),\\nwhich was developed by the Joint Collaborative Team on\\nVideo Coding (“JCT-VC”). Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd v. Info-\\nbridge Pte. Ltd, IPR2017-00099, 2018 WL 1940480 at *2\\n(P.T.A.B. April 23, 2018) (“Final Written Decision”). 1\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 We will refer to the final written decision from\\nIPR2017-00099 in this opinion because the final written\\ndecisions in both proceedings are substantially simi-\\nlar. See also Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge Pte.\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 3\\n\\n\\n\\nThe key question here is whether the WD4 reference was\\npublicly accessible prior to the ’772 patent’s critical date.\\nSamsung points to three examples of disclosures that it\\nclaims, independently or together, establish public accessi-\\nbility. Each are discussed below.\\n 1. JCT-VC Meetings\\n JCT-VC members met to discuss the H.265 standard,\\nthen under development, during a July 2011 meeting in To-\\nrino, Italy (“the Torino meeting”). This meeting included\\nabout 250 participants, ranging from academics to repre-\\nsentatives from various technology companies. One of the\\n“primary goals” for the Torino meeting was developing the\\nWD4 reference. J.A. 5327. In November 2011, at the next\\nJCT-VC meeting in Geneva, Switzerland (“the Geneva\\nmeeting”), the WD4 reference was discussed and ulti-\\nmately “approved.” J.A. 5587.\\n 2. JCT-VC and MPEG Websites\\n During this same time, the JCT-VC maintained a web-\\nsite allowing users to access various JCT-VC materials.\\nThe WD4 reference was uploaded to the JCT-VC’s website\\non October 4, 2011. Final Written Decision, 2018 WL\\n1940480 at *5. To access the WD4 reference, users needed\\nto follow at least four steps. First, they had to navigate to\\nthe JCT-VC website. J.A. 7026. Next, they had to select a\\nmenu option to view information about “All meetings” held\\nby the JCT-VC. J.A. 7029. Then a user would need to se-\\nlect “Torino” from the list of available meeting options,\\nwhich were not identified by subject matter. Id. At this\\npoint, the user would see a list of “hundreds” of documents\\norganized by an identifying number rather than subject\\nmatter. Final Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *4;\\nsee also J.A. 7034–7081 (listing the documents). From this\\n\\n\\nLtd., IPR2017-00100, 2018 WL 1936069 (P.T.A.B. April 23,\\n2018).\\n\\f4 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nlist, a user would need to select the WD4 reference, titled\\n“WD4: Working Draft of High-Efficiency Video Coding.”\\nJ.A. 7080.\\n The WD4 reference was also uploaded to a website\\nmaintained by the Moving Picture Expert Group\\n(“MPEG”), a parent organization of the JCT-VC, on Octo-\\nber 4, 2011. Final Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at\\n*2–3, *5. The MPEG website was arranged in a manner\\nsimilar to the JCT-VC website, i.e., a user would need to\\nnavigate to the relevant meeting and then select the rele-\\nvant document. Id. at *8–9. But, unlike the JCT-VC web-\\nsite, the MPEG website required users to have a login and\\npassword to access materials. Id. at *7.\\n 3. JCT-VC Listserv\\n On October 4, 2011, the same day it was uploaded to\\nthe Internet, Benjamin Bross—the lead author of the WD4\\nreference—emailed the reference to a JCT-VC listserv.\\nJ.A. 6377. According to Mr. Bross, the listserv included\\nJCT-VC members who had attended the Torino meeting as\\nwell as other “interested individuals.” J.A. 7947. Mr.\\nBross’s email included a download link for the WD4 refer-\\nence. Final Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *9.\\n C. The Board’s Decisions\\n Samsung filed two inter partes review petitions chal-\\nlenging claims 1–7 (IPR2017-00099) and claims 8–9\\n(IPR2017-00100) of the ’772 patent on October 17, 2016.\\nThe Board instituted as to all challenged claims. In both\\nproceedings, the Board’s institution decisions relied on\\nprior art combinations including the WD4 reference. In its\\nfinal written decisions, however, the Board concluded that\\nthe WD4 reference was not publicly accessible prior to the\\n’772 patent’s critical date and therefore could not be prior\\nart. Id. at *10.\\n As to the JCT-VC website, the Board concluded that\\nthere was “insufficient competent evidence” to show that a\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 5\\n\\n\\n\\nperson of ordinary skill in the art “would [have] know[n] to\\ncheck the JCT-VC site for information of relevance to the\\nart.” Id. at *5. Although Samsung offered testimony from\\nMr. Bross on this point, the Board rejected his testimony\\nas “conclusory and insufficiently factually supported” be-\\ncause Mr. Bross could not testify about whether others\\nwould have navigated to the JCT-VC website to learn about\\ndevelopments in video coding. Id. at *6. The Board there-\\nfore found that Samsung could not “establish that WD4\\nwas accessible to anyone other than members of JCT-VC”\\nduring the relevant time period. Id. The Board went on to\\nexplain that, assuming a person of ordinary skill might\\nhave known about the JCT-VC website, there was no evi-\\ndence that such a person would have located the WD4 ref-\\nerence on the website by exercising reasonable diligence.\\nId. at *7 (“Although the JCT-VC site was organized in a\\nhierarchical manner, the evidence does not establish WD4\\nwas indexed in a manner that one ordinarily skilled in the\\nart, exercising reasonable diligence, could locate it.”).\\n The Board reached the same conclusion with respect to\\nthe MPEG website for essentially the same reasons. Id. at\\n*7–9. For example, the Board again faulted Samsung for\\noffering only “conclusory and factually unsupported” asser-\\ntions that those skilled in the art were aware of the MPEG\\nwebsite. Id. at *8. The Board also found that, even if some-\\none could have found the MPEG website, they would not\\nhave been able to reasonably find the WD4 reference. Id.\\n(“[W]e also find Samsung has failed to present evidence\\nthat a person interested and skilled in the art could rea-\\nsonably have found WD4 on the MPEG site in October\\n2011, even if the user had access and knew the reference\\nwas there.”).\\n As to the listserv email sent by Mr. Bross, the Board\\nfound Mr. Bross’s testimony that the email was sent to in-\\ndividuals outside the JCT-VC as “nothing more than con-\\njecture and speculation.” Id. at *9. The Board went on to\\nconclude:\\n\\f6 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n We find Mr. Bross’s email to the JCT-VC [listserv]\\n was, at best, a limited distribution of a link to the\\n WD4 document information webpage to a select\\n group, the members of JCT-VC and perhaps others\\n who may have opted into the reflector. We also find\\n Mr. Bross’s testimony is insufficient to establish\\n that the e-mail with the link to the WD4 document\\n information webpage was generally disseminated\\n to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the\\n art. “[T]his record does not evince that [WD4] was\\n accessible to anyone other than the [JCT-VC], thus\\n further suggesting an absence of actual public ac-\\n cessibility.”\\nId. at *9 (quoting SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,\\n511 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (first alteration\\nadded).\\n The Board did not address whether the WD4 reference\\nwas publicly accessible because it had been disseminated\\nat the Torino or Geneva meetings.\\n Samsung timely appealed the Board’s final decisions.\\nWe have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n Samsung’s sole argument on appeal is that the Board\\nerred by finding that the WD4 reference was not publicly\\naccessible prior to the ’772 patent’s critical date. We turn\\nto this argument below after addressing whether Samsung\\nhas standing to bring this appeal in the first place.\\n A. Standing\\n Federal courts exercise their judicial power according\\nto limits imposed by Congress and the Constitution.\\nSpokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1546–47 (2016).\\nThese constitutional limits establish “the category of liti-\\ngants empowered to maintain a lawsuit in federal courts to\\nseek redress for a legal wrong.” Id. at 1547. And they apply\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 7\\n\\n\\n\\nat every stage of a case before a federal court, including on\\nappeal. Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., 845 F.3d 1168,\\n1171–72 (Fed. Cir. 2017). To clear this constitutional\\nthreshold, the party seeking to invoke our judicial power\\nmust show that it has suffered a “concrete and particular-\\nized” injury that is either actual or imminent. Lujan v.\\nDefs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). It must also\\nshow that this injury is fairly traceable to its adversary and\\nlikely to be redressed by a favorable ruling. Id.\\n We have “an independent obligation to assure that\\nstanding exists, regardless of whether it is challenged by\\nany of the parties.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555\\nU.S. 488, 499 (2009). Here, Samsung raised the issue of\\nstanding in its opening brief. Infobridge did not contest\\nthat Samsung has standing in response, but we think it is\\nnecessary to address the question.\\n Samsung’s standing argument turns on its relationship\\nto Infobridge and the ’772 patent. According to uncontro-\\nverted evidence provided by Samsung, the ’772 patent is\\nlicensed as part of a “pool” of patents, including some\\nowned by Samsung, that have been declared essential to\\nthe H.265 standard. Appellant’s Br. 59. Licensees pay a\\nfixed royalty for the pooled patents and then members who\\nown patents in the pool divide that royalty based on the\\nnumber of patents in the pool. By the express terms of the\\nlicense, if a pool patent is declared invalid, it is removed\\nfrom the pool and the other members thereafter receive a\\nhigher proportion of the fixed royalty. Members of the pool,\\nlike Samsung, therefore stand to gain if another pool pa-\\ntent is invalidated and removed from the pool.\\n Against this backdrop, Samsung argues that it is being\\n“depriv[ed]” of royalty payments and that “[t]his depriva-\\ntion of royalties is the kind of ‘concrete and particularized’\\neconomic injury that satisfies the Article III requirement.”\\nId. (quoting Phigenix, 845 F.3d at 1171). We agree with\\nSamsung that, under the facts and circumstances of this\\n\\f8 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ncase, its injury confers Article III standing. See, e.g., Chou\\nv. Univ. of Chicago, 254 F.3d 1347, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001)\\n(“If Chou has indeed been deprived of an interest in pro-\\nceeds from licensing the invention . . . then she will have\\nsuffered an injury-in-fact, i.e., the loss of those benefits”).\\nThis injury can be traced directly to the validity of Info-\\nbridge’s patent and would be redressed by a favorable de-\\ncision for Samsung. While other licensing and royalty\\nstructures might compel a different result where other\\nstandard-essential patents are involved, the unique pool li-\\ncense here satisfies us that Samsung has standing in this\\nappeal.\\n Accordingly, we proceed to the merits of Samsung’s ap-\\npeal.\\n B. Public Accessibility\\n A person is not entitled to a patent if their invention\\nwas “described in a printed publication . . . more than one\\nyear prior to the date of the[ir patent] application.”\\n35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2006). 2 We have read this statutory\\ntext as imposing two requirements: (1) that a putative prior\\nart reference be printed and (2) that the reference be pub-\\nlished, i.e., accessible to the public. In re Wyer, 655 F.2d\\n221, 225 (CCPA 1981). We have emphasized, however,\\nthat what constitutes a “printed publication” must be de-\\ntermined in light of the technology employed, id. at 226,\\nand that it is public accessibility that is the “touchstone,”\\nJazz Pharm., Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC, 895 F.3d 1347,\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 In 2011, Congress amended § 102 as part of the\\nAmerica Invents Act (“AIA”). See Leahy-Smith America\\nInvents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 3(b)(1), 125 Stat. 284,\\n285–86 (2011). This opinion applies the pre-AIA version\\nof § 102 because the ’772 patent does not contain any\\nclaims or reference to claims that have an effective filing\\ndate on or after March 16, 2013.\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 9\\n\\n\\n\\n1355 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).\\nA reference is considered publicly accessible if “persons in-\\nterested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art,\\nexercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Acceleration\\nBay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772\\n(Fed. Cir. 2018). In some cases, this inquiry is straightfor-\\nward. But in other cases, public accessibility depends on a\\ncareful, case-by-case examination of how a particular ref-\\nerence was disseminated, to whom, for how long, and under\\nwhat circumstances. Jazz, 895 F.3d at 1357.\\n When a reference is uploaded to a website or deposited\\nin a library, the fact that the reference is indexed or cata-\\nloged in some way can indicate that it is publicly accessible.\\nIn Acceleration Bay, for example, the reference at issue was\\nuploaded to a university website. 908 F.3d at 773. While\\nthis made the work technically accessible—someone could\\ntheoretically find it on the Internet—we explained that\\n“public accessibility requires more than technical accessi-\\nbility.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). And while\\nthe website indexed references “by author and year,” we\\nagreed with the Board that this did not mean the reference\\nat issue had been “meaningfully indexed such that an in-\\nterested artisan exercising reasonable diligence would\\nhave found it.” Id. at 774; see also SRI, 511 F.3d at 1196\\n(“[T]he FTP server did not contain an index or catalogue or\\nother tools for customary and meaningful research.”).\\nOn this record, we affirmed the Board’s finding that the\\nreference was not publicly accessible even though it had\\nbeen uploaded to a website.\\n Similarly, in Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election So-\\nlutions, Inc., 698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012), there was also\\nno evidence that the reference had been meaningfully in-\\ndexed or cataloged. But there was “uncontested evidence”\\nthat “a person of ordinary skill interested in [the relevant\\nsubject matter] would have been independently aware of\\n[the website]” and that “such an interested researcher\\nwould have found [the reference] using that website’s own\\n\\f10 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nsearch functions and applying reasonable diligence.” 698\\nF.3d at 1381; see also Jazz, 895 F.3d at 1359 (noting “un-\\nchallenged findings” that a person of ordinary skill in the\\nrelevant art “would have had reason to” find the website at\\nissue). In view of these facts, among others, we affirmed a\\ndistrict court’s conclusion that the reference was publicly\\naccessible. Voter Verified, 698 F.3d at 1381. Thus, while\\nindexing is not required to show that a work is publicly ac-\\ncessible, some evidence that a person of ordinary skill could\\nhave reasonably found the website and then found the ref-\\nerence on that website is critical. Acceleration Bay, 908\\nF.3d at 773.\\n To the extent the Board resolves factual issues in de-\\ntermining that a reference is or is not prior art under § 102,\\nits factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.\\nBlue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1339,\\n1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[Substantial evidence] means—and\\nmeans only—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind\\nmight accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek\\nv. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) (internal quota-\\ntion marks omitted). The ultimate question of whether a\\nreference is prior art under § 102(b), however, is a legal\\nquestion we review de novo. Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at\\n1339, 1348.\\n Samsung argues that the WD4 reference was publicly\\naccessible because it was discussed at various JCT-VC\\nmeetings, uploaded to the JCT-VC and MPEG websites,\\nand emailed to the JCT-VC listserv. We address each ar-\\ngument below.\\n 1. JCT-VC Meetings\\n Samsung argues that the WD4 reference became pub-\\nlicly accessible because it was developed at a “prominent\\ninternational conference,” Appellant’s Reply Br. 15, and\\nwas distributed to attendees, id. at 12–15; Appellant’s Br.\\n32–36. Infobridge responds that Samsung actually argues\\ndistribution of the WD4 reference at the Torino and Geneva\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 11\\n\\n\\n\\nmeetings, an argument that Infobridge contends Samsung\\nhas waived. To the extent Samsung can be understood to\\nbe arguing distribution of the WD4 reference at the Torino\\nand Geneva meetings, we agree the argument was waived.\\n Before the Board, Samsung did not argue that the WD4\\nreference was publicly accessible because it was discussed\\nat the Torino meeting or disseminated at the Geneva meet-\\ning. In fact, Samsung never mentioned the Geneva meet-\\ning. To the extent Samsung mentioned the Torino meeting,\\nmoreover, it was related to the JCT-VC website and\\nMr. Bross’s email. J.A. 132–39. Samsung conceded as\\nmuch at oral argument. See Oral Arg. at 1:23–54\\n(“Q. I thought it was pretty clear from your reply brief that\\nyou had backed away [from relying on the Torino meeting]?\\nA. We have never taken the position before the Board or\\nhere that there was a distribution of WD4 at the Torino\\nmeeting . . . . Q. But even as to the Geneva meet-\\ning . . . . you never relied on that alone? A. We are not re-\\nlying on the Geneva meeting . . . .”), available at\\nhttp://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/de-\\nfault.aspx?fl=2018-2007.mp3. Thus, Samsung waived any\\nseparate argument on appeal that the WD4 reference was\\npublicly accessible because it was disseminated at the To-\\nrino or Geneva meetings. See MCM Portfolio LLC v.\\nHewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284, 1294 n.3 (Fed. Cir.\\n2015) (deeming arguments not presented to the Board\\nwaived on appeal); Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharm. Ltd., 853\\nF.3d 1316, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (same).\\n Alternately, we agree with Infobridge that, if not\\nwaived, any argument based upon distribution of the WD4\\nreference at the Torino and Geneva meetings is without\\nmerit. The WD4 reference was not created until after the\\nTorino meeting. J.A. 7949. The reference therefore could\\nnot have been circulated to conference attendees at the\\nmeeting itself. Moreover, Samsung conceded at oral argu-\\nment that the Geneva meeting occurred after the relevant\\ncritical date. Oral Arg. at 1:41–54 (noting that the Geneva\\n\\f12 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nmeeting occurred “a few days after the one-year period”).\\nThus, even if the disclosure at that meeting could establish\\npublic accessibility, it would not establish that the WD4\\nreference could serve as prior art here.\\n 2. JCT-VC and MPEG Websites\\n To establish that the WD4 reference was publicly ac-\\ncessible once it was uploaded to the JCT-VC website, Sam-\\nsung provided a declaration from Mr. Bross where he\\ntestified as follows:\\n [B]ased on my knowledge and recollection, given\\n the prominence of the JCT-VC in the video coding\\n industry, persons interested in tracking the devel-\\n opments of the latest video coding standard would\\n regularly visit the JCT-VC site to ensure that prod-\\n ucts and services they were developing were con-\\n sistent with the HEVC Standard under\\n development.\\nFinal Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *5–6 (quoting\\nJ.A. 7942). The Board rejected this testimony as “conclu-\\nsory and insufficiently factually supported.” Id. at *6. Ac-\\ncording to the Board, Mr. Bross had no basis to say whether\\nothers “regularly visit[ed]” the JCT-VC website or thought\\nit was “prominen[t].” Id.\\n Samsung also argued that Infobridge’s expert, Dr.\\nFurht, supported Mr. Bross’s testimony. Id. But the Board\\nrejected this characterization of Dr. Furht’s testimony. Id.\\nAs the Board explained, Dr. Furht acknowledged that he\\nwas “probably aware,” before June 2013, that efforts were\\nbeing made to develop the H.265 standard. Id. The Board\\nconcluded that “this testimony [was] not relevant or proba-\\ntive of what persons of skill in the video coding art in gen-\\neral knew about WD4” or the JCT-VC website. Id.\\n Having rejected Mr. Bross’s testimony, and without ad-\\nditional support, the Board concluded that Samsung failed\\nto show that ordinarily skilled artisans “who were not part\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 13\\n\\n\\n\\nof JCT-VC” would have known about or found the JCT-VC\\nwebsite. Id. On this basis, the Board found that Samsung\\n“d[id] not establish that [the] WD4 [reference] was accessi-\\nble to anyone other than members of JCT-VC.” Id.\\n The Board also found that a skilled artisan would not\\nhave been able to locate the WD4 reference on the JCT-VC\\nwebsite—even assuming the JCT-VC website itself was ac-\\ncessible—by exercising reasonable diligence. Id. at *7.\\nTo support this conclusion, the Board walked through the\\nsteps that a person would have to go through to find the\\nWD4 reference on the JCT-VC website. Id. As the Board\\nexplained, “identifying a meeting location was key to navi-\\ngating the JCT-VC site.” Id. In other words, if a person\\ndid not know to search for the WD4 reference by looking\\nunder the “Torino” folder—named for the Torino meeting—\\nthen a person would not have found the WD4 reference. Id.\\nBut the Board noted that there was “no evidence” anyone,\\noutside those participating in the JCT-VC meetings, would\\nhave found “cities . . . helpful in any respect in locating a\\ndocument on the site.” Id. This difficulty was compounded\\nby the fact that Samsung presented “no evidence that one\\ncould search for or locate [the] WD4 [reference] based on its\\nsubject matter.” Id. The Board therefore concluded that\\nSamsung failed to show that the WD4 reference was pub-\\nlicly accessible. Id.\\n Samsung argues that the Board failed to consider\\nwhether access by members of the JCT-VC could make the\\nWD4 reference publicly accessible. Appellant’s Br. 45\\n(“The Board improperly required Samsung to prove access\\noutside the JCT-VC . . . membership . . . .” (emphasis\\nadded)). This error is critical, Samsung insists, because the\\nJCT-VC was composed of more than 250 members who\\nwere skilled artisans following the development of H.265\\nand video coding in general. Id. According to Samsung,\\nsharing the WD4 reference among JCT-VC members is like\\nan academic presenting a paper at a conference, which we\\n\\f14 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nhave said can make a work publicly accessible. Id. at 44\\n(collecting cases).\\n We are not persuaded by Samsung’s analogy. Like the\\nBoard, we find SRI is instructive. There, the reference at\\nissue was emailed to the organizer of an upcoming sympo-\\nsium, Dr. Bishop. SRI, 511 F.3d at 1190. Based on that\\nrecord, the district court concluded on summary judgment\\nthat the email made the work publicly accessible. Id. at\\n1194. On appeal, we remanded based on various disputed\\nfacts. As relevant here, we noted that the evidence sug-\\ngested “only one non-SRI person, Dr. Bishop, knew about\\nthe availability of [the reference].” Id. at 1196 (citing Ap-\\nplication of Bayer, 568 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1978)). This “mil-\\nitate[d] against a finding of public accessibility.” Id. at\\n1197. We reached a similar result in Bayer, where the ref-\\nerence at issue, a student thesis, was only accessible to\\nmembers of a faculty review committee. 568 F.2d. at 1361\\n(concluding that “[a]ccessibility to appellant’s thesis by the\\nthree members of the graduate committee under the cir-\\ncumstances of the present case” did not demonstrate that\\nthe work was publicly accessible); see also SRI, 511 F.3d at\\n1196 (noting the similarity between “only one non-SRI per-\\nson” having access to a reference and “the knowledge of the\\nthesis’s availability by the three professors in Bayer”).\\n Taken together, these cases suggest that a work is not\\npublicly accessible if the only people who know how to find\\nit are the ones who created it. This is why SRI focused on\\nthe knowledge of those outside the authoring organization\\nand why Bayer discounted the knowledge of various profes-\\nsors on a faculty committee reviewing student theses.\\nTo hold otherwise would disincentivize collaboration and\\ndepart from what it means to publish something.\\n The Board’s analysis is consistent with this principle\\nand its underlying conclusions are supportable. Unlike the\\nconference attendees in GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding\\nLLC, 908 F.3d 690 (Fed. Cir. 2018) or Medtronic, Inc. v.\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 15\\n\\n\\n\\nBarry, 891 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018), JCT-VC members\\nwere part of ongoing, collaborative efforts to draft the WD4\\nreference. For example, Mr. Bross testified that the WD4\\nreference was “developed by the Joint Collaborative Team\\non Video Coding (JCT-VC).” J.A. 7936; see also J.A. 5326\\n(noting that “[t]he JCT-VC produced . . . the HEVC specifi-\\ncation Working Draft 4 (WD4)”). Even if Mr. Bross was the\\nlead author of the WD4 reference, we cannot say on this\\nrecord that the Board erred in treating the other JCT-VC\\nmembers who knew about this ongoing project like the fac-\\nulty advisers in Bayer or in-house employees in SRI. The\\nBoard therefore properly focused on whether those outside\\nof the JCT-VC knew about the JCT-VC website in consid-\\nering whether posting the WD4 reference on the website\\nmade it publicly accessible.\\n Samsung also argues that the Board’s factual findings\\nabout the website, and the accessibility of the WD4 refer-\\nence on the website, were not supported by substantial ev-\\nidence. We disagree. Samsung did not offer evidence,\\napart from the speculation of Mr. Bross, that a person of\\nordinary skill, exercising reasonable diligence, would have\\nlocated the JCT-VC website or even known to look for it.3\\nFinal Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *5–6. That\\nsets this case apart from Voter Verified and Jazz. Cf. Voter\\nVerified, 698 F.3d at 1381 (noting uncontested evidence\\nthat persons of ordinary skill in the art knew about the\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 Samsung argues that Mr. Bross’s testimony was\\n“uncontested” and thus had to be accepted. Appellant’s Br.\\nat 49. But the Board is not obligated to accept a witness’s\\nspeculation as true. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.62. To the ex-\\ntent Samsung argues that the Board erred by excluding the\\ntestimony as speculative, moreover, we see no basis to say\\nthat the Board abused its discretion. See Intelligent Bio-\\nSys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367\\n(Fed. Cir. 2016).\\n\\f16 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nwebsite); Jazz, 895 F.3d at 1359 (same). And, as the Board\\nexplained in detail, even a person who found the JCT-VC\\nwebsite lacked a reasonable way of locating the WD4 refer-\\nence unless they already knew what to look for and where\\nto look for it. Id. at *7. This supports the Board’s conclu-\\nsion that the WD4 reference would not have been reasona-\\nbly accessible even if a skilled artisan knew about the JCT-\\nVC website. See Bayer, 568 F.2d at 1361 (“[S]ince appel-\\nlant’s thesis could have been located in the university li-\\nbrary only by one having been informed of its existence by\\nthe faculty committee, and not by means of the customary\\nresearch aids available in the library, the ‘probability of\\npublic knowledge of the contents of the [thesis],’ was virtu-\\nally nil.” (internal citation omitted)); In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d\\n1158, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Acceleration Bay, 908 F.3d at\\n773. Samsung’s contrary argument simply asks us to re-\\nweigh the evidence in its favor. We decline to do so. Re-\\ngents of Univ. of California v. Broad Inst., Inc., 903 F.3d\\n1286, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It is not our role to ask\\nwhether substantial evidence supports fact-findings not\\nmade by the Board, but instead whether such evidence sup-\\nports the findings that were in fact made. Here, we con-\\nclude that it does.”).\\n Samsung’s remaining arguments regarding the web-\\nsite are similarly unavailing. For example, Samsung in-\\nsists that the Board required it to show that the JCT-VC\\nwebsite was “advertised outside of” JCT-VC. Appellant’s\\nBr. 47. But the Board imposed no such requirement. In-\\nstead, it pointed to the lack of advertising as an example,\\namong others, of Samsung’s failure to show that those out-\\nside of the JCT-VC knew about the JCT-VC website. Final\\nWritten Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *6. Samsung also\\nargues that the Board required it to show that the WD4\\nreference was indexed. Again, the Board did no such thing.\\nRather, it noted that the structure of the website, which\\norganized content by meeting and lacked a way to search\\nby subject matter, meant that a person would only find the\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 17\\n\\n\\n\\nWD4 reference if they knew where to look. The Board’s\\nensuing analysis, as explained above, is consistent with our\\nprecedent and factually supported. Samsung also faults\\nthe Board for changing its view from its institution deci-\\nsions to its final written decisions. We have repeatedly\\nsaid, however, that “[t]he Board is free to change its view\\nof the merits after further development of the record, and\\nshould do so if convinced its initial inclinations were\\nwrong.” Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068\\n(Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,\\n829 F.3d 1364, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he Board has an\\nobligation to assess the [validity] question anew after trial\\nbased on the totality of the record.”). The Board did just\\nthat.\\n We reach the same conclusion with respect to the\\nMPEG website for the same reasons stated above. Appel-\\nlant’s Br. 56 (noting the similarities between the JCT-VC\\nwebsite and the MPEG website). In particular, the Board’s\\nconclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would\\nnot have been able to find the WD4 reference on the MPEG\\nwebsite, even after exercising reasonable diligence, is sup-\\nported by substantial evidence. Final Written Decision,\\n2018 WL 1940480 at *7–9.\\n 3. JCT-VC Listserv\\n Samsung last argues that the WD4 reference was pub-\\nlicly accessible because Mr. Bross emailed it to the JCT-VC\\nlistserv. On this point, Mr. Bross testified that the listserv\\nincluded 254 JCT-VC members and other “interested indi-\\nviduals.” J.A. 7947–48. Mr. Bross further testified that\\n“any person could subscribe to the JCT-VC reflector by re-\\nquesting a subscription at the JCT-VC reflector manage-\\nment site” and “anyone with a valid e-mail address\\nrequesting subscription was typically approved.”\\nJ.A. 7948.\\n The Board credited this evidence, at least in part.\\nFor example, the Board found that Mr. Bross emailed a\\n\\f18 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nlink to the WD4 reference to the listserv in October 2011.\\nFinal Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *9. It also\\nagreed that the listserv may have included “others who\\nmay have opted into the [listserv].” Id. The Board, how-\\never, found this evidence insufficient to establish public ac-\\ncessibility because it could not determine that “those 254\\nindividuals represented a significant portion of those inter-\\nested and skilled in the art.” Id. Instead, the Board viewed\\nthe email as a “limited distribution” that did not show the\\nwork was “generally disseminated to persons interested\\nand ordinarily skilled in the art.” Id.\\n Samsung argues that the Board erred by confusing ac-\\ncess with accessibility. We agree. Our cases have consist-\\nently held that the standard for public accessibility is\\nwhether a person of ordinary skill in the art could, after\\nexercising reasonable diligence, access a reference. Jazz,\\n895 F.3d at 1355–56 (“A reference is considered publicly\\naccessible upon a satisfactory showing that such document\\nhas been disseminated or otherwise made available to the\\nextent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the\\nsubject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can\\nlocate it. If accessibility is proved, there is no requirement\\nto show that particular members of the public actually re-\\nceived the information.” (internal quotation marks and ci-\\ntations omitted)); In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed.\\nCir. 2009) (“[O]ur cases have held that once accessibility is\\nshown, it is unnecessary to show that anyone actually in-\\nspected the reference.”); Constant v. Advanced Micro-De-\\nvices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“If\\naccessibility is proved, there is no requirement to show that\\nparticular members of the public actually received the in-\\nformation.”). Thus, a petitioner need not establish that\\nspecific persons actually accessed or received a work to\\nshow that the work was publicly accessible.\\n The Board departed from this well-established princi-\\nple by repeatedly faulting Samsung for not proving that the\\nWD4 reference was “generally” or “widely” disseminated.\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 19\\n\\n\\n\\nFinal Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *9. In fact,\\na limited distribution can make a work publicly accessible\\nunder certain circumstances. See, e.g., GoPro, 908 F.3d at\\n694. But the Board’s analysis stopped short of considering\\nwhether those circumstances were present here. The\\nBoard also faulted Samsung for failing to show that the\\nemail recipients “represented a significant portion of those\\ninterested and skilled in the art.” Final Written Decision,\\n2018 WL 1940480 at *9. That was not Samsung’s burden.\\nSee, e.g., Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. AB Fortia, 774 F.2d 1104\\n(Fed. Cir. 1985) (distribution to six conference attendees\\nmade work publicly accessible). The Board’s decision to re-\\nject Samsung’s evidence because it did not establish that\\nenough interested and ordinarily skilled artisans actually\\nobtained the WD4 reference was therefore erroneous.\\n Infobridge offers no substantive response on this point.\\nInfobridge actually agrees that the relevant question here\\nis “the extent that [the WD4 reference] could b[e] located\\nby an interested person exercising reasonable diligence.”\\nAppellee’s Br. 28 (emphasis added). Infobridge simply ar-\\ngues that the Board applied this test here. We are not per-\\nsuaded. As noted above, the only rationales offered by the\\nBoard on this issue were legally erroneous. 4 In re NuVa-\\nsive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The PTAB’s\\nown explanation must suffice for us to see that the agency\\nhas done its job . . . .”).\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 The Board’s rationales and conclusions with re-\\nspect to the JCT-VC and MPEG websites do not suffer from\\nthis same defect. See, e.g., Final Written Decision, 2018 WL\\n1940480 at *7 (“Although the JCT-VC site was organized\\nin a hierarchical manner, the evidence does not establish\\n[that the] WD4 [reference] was indexed in a manner that\\none ordinarily skilled in the art, exercising reasonable dil-\\nigence, could locate it.” (emphasis added)).\\n\\f20 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Rather than requiring Samsung to prove that persons\\nof ordinary skill actually received the listserv email, the\\nBoard should have considered whether Samsung’s evi-\\ndence established that an ordinarily skilled artisan could\\nhave accessed the WD4 reference, after exercising reason-\\nable diligence, based on the listserv email. This might in-\\nclude examining whether a person of ordinary skill,\\nexercising reasonable diligence, would have joined the\\nlistserv. See, e.g., GoPro, 908 F.3d at 694. It also might\\ninclude considering the circumstances of the email itself,\\nfor example why the email was sent and whether it was\\ncovered by an expectation of confidentiality. See, e.g.,\\nMass. Inst. of Tech., 774 F.2d at 1109. Because the record\\nis not clear on these factual questions, we decline to resolve\\nthem in the first instance on appeal. See, e.g., Medtronic,\\n891 F.3d at 1381–83 (remanding for the Board to consider\\nthe public accessibility question). In particular, we are re-\\nluctant to assume that an email among potential collabo-\\nrators should be treated the same as a public disclosure\\nwithout clear findings by the Board. Accordingly, we va-\\ncate the Board’s finding that Mr. Bross’s email did not\\nmake the WD4 reference publicly accessible and remand so\\nthat the Board can consider this issue after applying the\\ncorrect legal standard.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments\\nand find them unpersuasive. Ultimately, the Board ap-\\nplied an erroneous legal standard in concluding that the\\nlistserv email did not make the WD4 reference publicly ac-\\ncessible. We therefore vacate the Board’s findings on this\\npoint and remand for further proceedings consistent with\\nthis opinion.\\n VACATED AND REMANDED\\n COSTS\\n No costs.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4416379/\", \"author_raw\": \"O'MALLEY, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"NEWMAN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SCHALL"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"O'MALLEY"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4639126/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Appellant v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD., Appellee\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,\n Appellant\n\n v.\n\n INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.,\n Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2018-2007, 2018-2012\n ______________________\n\n Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2017-\n00099, IPR2017-00100.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: July 12, 2019\n ______________________\n\n STEPHEN BLAKE KINNAIRD, Paul Hastings LLP, Wash-\nington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by\nNAVEEN MODI, QUADEER AHMED, JOSEPH PALYS, IGOR\nVICTOR TIMOFEYEV, MICHAEL WOLFE, DANIEL ZEILBERGER.\n\n MICHAEL NEWMAN, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky\nand Popeo, PC, Boston, MA, argued for appellee. Also rep-\nresented by WILLIAM MEUNIER, KONGSIK KIM, MICHAEL\nTIMOTHY RENAUD.\n ______________________\n\nBefore NEWMAN, SCHALL, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.\n\f2 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\n\n\n\n\nO’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.\n In two inter partes review proceedings requested by\nSamsung, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”)\nupheld all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 8,917,772 (“the\n’772 patent”), which is owned by Infobridge. The Board up-\nheld the claims because it found that Samsung failed to\nshow that a certain prior art reference was publicly acces-\nsible before the ’772 patent’s critical date and thus could\nnot be considered prior art. Samsung appeals the Board’s\ndecisions, insisting that it has standing to do so and argu-\ning, among other things, that the Board applied the wrong\nlegal standard in assessing public accessibility. We agree\nwith Samsung on both issues. We therefore vacate the\nBoard’s decisions and remand for further consideration.\n I. BACKGROUND\n A. The Technology\n The ’772 Patent, titled “Method of Constructing Merge\nList,” generally relates to encoding and decoding video\ndata. Both parties agree for purposes of this appeal that\nthe patented methods are essential to the High Efficiency\nVideo Coding standard (“the H.265 standard”).\n B. The Prior Art\n The sole prior art reference at issue on appeal is Work-\ning Draft 4 of the H.265 standard (“the WD4 reference”),\nwhich was developed by the Joint Collaborative Team on\nVideo Coding (“JCT-VC”). Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd v. Info-\nbridge Pte. Ltd, IPR2017-00099, 2018 WL 1940480 at *2\n(P.T.A.B. April 23, 2018) (“Final Written Decision”). 1\n\n\n\n 1 We will refer to the final written decision from\nIPR2017-00099 in this opinion because the final written\ndecisions in both proceedings are substantially simi-\nlar. See also Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge Pte.\n\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 3\n\n\n\nThe key question here is whether the WD4 reference was\npublicly accessible prior to the ’772 patent’s critical date.\nSamsung points to three examples of disclosures that it\nclaims, independently or together, establish public accessi-\nbility. Each are discussed below.\n 1. JCT-VC Meetings\n JCT-VC members met to discuss the H.265 standard,\nthen under development, during a July 2011 meeting in To-\nrino, Italy (“the Torino meeting”). This meeting included\nabout 250 participants, ranging from academics to repre-\nsentatives from various technology companies. One of the\n“primary goals” for the Torino meeting was developing the\nWD4 reference. J.A. 5327. In November 2011, at the next\nJCT-VC meeting in Geneva, Switzerland (“the Geneva\nmeeting”), the WD4 reference was discussed and ulti-\nmately “approved.” J.A. 5587.\n 2. JCT-VC and MPEG Websites\n During this same time, the JCT-VC maintained a web-\nsite allowing users to access various JCT-VC materials.\nThe WD4 reference was uploaded to the JCT-VC’s website\non October 4, 2011. Final Written Decision, 2018 WL\n1940480 at *5. To access the WD4 reference, users needed\nto follow at least four steps. First, they had to navigate to\nthe JCT-VC website. J.A. 7026. Next, they had to select a\nmenu option to view information about “All meetings” held\nby the JCT-VC. J.A. 7029. Then a user would need to se-\nlect “Torino” from the list of available meeting options,\nwhich were not identified by subject matter. Id. At this\npoint, the user would see a list of “hundreds” of documents\norganized by an identifying number rather than subject\nmatter. Final Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *4;\nsee also J.A. 7034–7081 (listing the documents). From this\n\n\nLtd., IPR2017-00100, 2018 WL 1936069 (P.T.A.B. April 23,\n2018).\n\f4 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\n\n\n\n\nlist, a user would need to select the WD4 reference, titled\n“WD4: Working Draft of High-Efficiency Video Coding.”\nJ.A. 7080.\n The WD4 reference was also uploaded to a website\nmaintained by the Moving Picture Expert Group\n(“MPEG”), a parent organization of the JCT-VC, on Octo-\nber 4, 2011. Final Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at\n*2–3, *5. The MPEG website was arranged in a manner\nsimilar to the JCT-VC website, i.e., a user would need to\nnavigate to the relevant meeting and then select the rele-\nvant document. Id. at *8–9. But, unlike the JCT-VC web-\nsite, the MPEG website required users to have a login and\npassword to access materials. Id. at *7.\n 3. JCT-VC Listserv\n On October 4, 2011, the same day it was uploaded to\nthe Internet, Benjamin Bross—the lead author of the WD4\nreference—emailed the reference to a JCT-VC listserv.\nJ.A. 6377. According to Mr. Bross, the listserv included\nJCT-VC members who had attended the Torino meeting as\nwell as other “interested individuals.” J.A. 7947. Mr.\nBross’s email included a download link for the WD4 refer-\nence. Final Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *9.\n C. The Board’s Decisions\n Samsung filed two inter partes review petitions chal-\nlenging claims 1–7 (IPR2017-00099) and claims 8–9\n(IPR2017-00100) of the ’772 patent on October 17, 2016.\nThe Board instituted as to all challenged claims. In both\nproceedings, the Board’s institution decisions relied on\nprior art combinations including the WD4 reference. In its\nfinal written decisions, however, the Board concluded that\nthe WD4 reference was not publicly accessible prior to the\n’772 patent’s critical date and therefore could not be prior\nart. Id. at *10.\n As to the JCT-VC website, the Board concluded that\nthere was “insufficient competent evidence” to show that a\n\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 5\n\n\n\nperson of ordinary skill in the art “would [have] know[n] to\ncheck the JCT-VC site for information of relevance to the\nart.” Id. at *5. Although Samsung offered testimony from\nMr. Bross on this point, the Board rejected his testimony\nas “conclusory and insufficiently factually supported” be-\ncause Mr. Bross could not testify about whether others\nwould have navigated to the JCT-VC website to learn about\ndevelopments in video coding. Id. at *6. The Board there-\nfore found that Samsung could not “establish that WD4\nwas accessible to anyone other than members of JCT-VC”\nduring the relevant time period. Id. The Board went on to\nexplain that, assuming a person of ordinary skill might\nhave known about the JCT-VC website, there was no evi-\ndence that such a person would have located the WD4 ref-\nerence on the website by exercising reasonable diligence.\nId. at *7 (“Although the JCT-VC site was organized in a\nhierarchical manner, the evidence does not establish WD4\nwas indexed in a manner that one ordinarily skilled in the\nart, exercising reasonable diligence, could locate it.”).\n The Board reached the same conclusion with respect to\nthe MPEG website for essentially the same reasons. Id. at\n*7–9. For example, the Board again faulted Samsung for\noffering only “conclusory and factually unsupported” asser-\ntions that those skilled in the art were aware of the MPEG\nwebsite. Id. at *8. The Board also found that, even if some-\none could have found the MPEG website, they would not\nhave been able to reasonably find the WD4 reference. Id.\n(“[W]e also find Samsung has failed to present evidence\nthat a person interested and skilled in the art could rea-\nsonably have found WD4 on the MPEG site in October\n2011, even if the user had access and knew the reference\nwas there.”).\n As to the listserv email sent by Mr. Bross, the Board\nfound Mr. Bross’s testimony that the email was sent to in-\ndividuals outside the JCT-VC as “nothing more than con-\njecture and speculation.” Id. at *9. The Board went on to\nconclude:\n\f6 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\n\n\n\n\n We find Mr. Bross’s email to the JCT-VC [listserv]\n was, at best, a limited distribution of a link to the\n WD4 document information webpage to a select\n group, the members of JCT-VC and perhaps others\n who may have opted into the reflector. We also find\n Mr. Bross’s testimony is insufficient to establish\n that the e-mail with the link to the WD4 document\n information webpage was generally disseminated\n to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the\n art. “[T]his record does not evince that [WD4] was\n accessible to anyone other than the [JCT-VC], thus\n further suggesting an absence of actual public ac-\n cessibility.”\nId. at *9 (quoting SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,\n511 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (first alteration\nadded).\n The Board did not address whether the WD4 reference\nwas publicly accessible because it had been disseminated\nat the Torino or Geneva meetings.\n Samsung timely appealed the Board’s final decisions.\nWe have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).\n II. DISCUSSION\n Samsung’s sole argument on appeal is that the Board\nerred by finding that the WD4 reference was not publicly\naccessible prior to the ’772 patent’s critical date. We turn\nto this argument below after addressing whether Samsung\nhas standing to bring this appeal in the first place.\n A. Standing\n Federal courts exercise their judicial power according\nto limits imposed by Congress and the Constitution.\nSpokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1546–47 (2016).\nThese constitutional limits establish “the category of liti-\ngants empowered to maintain a lawsuit in federal courts to\nseek redress for a legal wrong.” Id. at 1547. And they apply\n\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 7\n\n\n\nat every stage of a case before a federal court, including on\nappeal. Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., 845 F.3d 1168,\n1171–72 (Fed. Cir. 2017). To clear this constitutional\nthreshold, the party seeking to invoke our judicial power\nmust show that it has suffered a “concrete and particular-\nized” injury that is either actual or imminent. Lujan v.\nDefs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). It must also\nshow that this injury is fairly traceable to its adversary and\nlikely to be redressed by a favorable ruling. Id.\n We have “an independent obligation to assure that\nstanding exists, regardless of whether it is challenged by\nany of the parties.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555\nU.S. 488, 499 (2009). Here, Samsung raised the issue of\nstanding in its opening brief. Infobridge did not contest\nthat Samsung has standing in response, but we think it is\nnecessary to address the question.\n Samsung’s standing argument turns on its relationship\nto Infobridge and the ’772 patent. According to uncontro-\nverted evidence provided by Samsung, the ’772 patent is\nlicensed as part of a “pool” of patents, including some\nowned by Samsung, that have been declared essential to\nthe H.265 standard. Appellant’s Br. 59. Licensees pay a\nfixed royalty for the pooled patents and then members who\nown patents in the pool divide that royalty based on the\nnumber of patents in the pool. By the express terms of the\nlicense, if a pool patent is declared invalid, it is removed\nfrom the pool and the other members thereafter receive a\nhigher proportion of the fixed royalty. Members of the pool,\nlike Samsung, therefore stand to gain if another pool pa-\ntent is invalidated and removed from the pool.\n Against this backdrop, Samsung argues that it is being\n“depriv[ed]” of royalty payments and that “[t]his depriva-\ntion of royalties is the kind of ‘concrete and particularized’\neconomic injury that satisfies the Article III requirement.”\nId. (quoting Phigenix, 845 F.3d at 1171). We agree with\nSamsung that, under the facts and circumstances of this\n\f8 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\n\n\n\n\ncase, its injury confers Article III standing. See, e.g., Chou\nv. Univ. of Chicago, 254 F.3d 1347, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001)\n(“If Chou has indeed been deprived of an interest in pro-\nceeds from licensing the invention . . . then she will have\nsuffered an injury-in-fact, i.e., the loss of those benefits”).\nThis injury can be traced directly to the validity of Info-\nbridge’s patent and would be redressed by a favorable de-\ncision for Samsung. While other licensing and royalty\nstructures might compel a different result where other\nstandard-essential patents are involved, the unique pool li-\ncense here satisfies us that Samsung has standing in this\nappeal.\n Accordingly, we proceed to the merits of Samsung’s ap-\npeal.\n B. Public Accessibility\n A person is not entitled to a patent if their invention\nwas “described in a printed publication . . . more than one\nyear prior to the date of the[ir patent] application.”\n35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2006). 2 We have read this statutory\ntext as imposing two requirements: (1) that a putative prior\nart reference be printed and (2) that the reference be pub-\nlished, i.e., accessible to the public. In re Wyer, 655 F.2d\n221, 225 (CCPA 1981). We have emphasized, however,\nthat what constitutes a “printed publication” must be de-\ntermined in light of the technology employed, id. at 226,\nand that it is public accessibility that is the “touchstone,”\nJazz Pharm., Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC, 895 F.3d 1347,\n\n\n\n 2 In 2011, Congress amended § 102 as part of the\nAmerica Invents Act (“AIA”). See Leahy-Smith America\nInvents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 3(b)(1), 125 Stat. 284,\n285–86 (2011). This opinion applies the pre-AIA version\nof § 102 because the ’772 patent does not contain any\nclaims or reference to claims that have an effective filing\ndate on or after March 16, 2013.\n\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 9\n\n\n\n1355 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).\nA reference is considered publicly accessible if “persons in-\nterested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art,\nexercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Acceleration\nBay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772\n(Fed. Cir. 2018). In some cases, this inquiry is straightfor-\nward. But in other cases, public accessibility depends on a\ncareful, case-by-case examination of how a particular ref-\nerence was disseminated, to whom, for how long, and under\nwhat circumstances. Jazz, 895 F.3d at 1357.\n When a reference is uploaded to a website or deposited\nin a library, the fact that the reference is indexed or cata-\nloged in some way can indicate that it is publicly accessible.\nIn Acceleration Bay, for example, the reference at issue was\nuploaded to a university website. 908 F.3d at 773. While\nthis made the work technically accessible—someone could\ntheoretically find it on the Internet—we explained that\n“public accessibility requires more than technical accessi-\nbility.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). And while\nthe website indexed references “by author and year,” we\nagreed with the Board that this did not mean the reference\nat issue had been “meaningfully indexed such that an in-\nterested artisan exercising reasonable diligence would\nhave found it.” Id. at 774; see also SRI, 511 F.3d at 1196\n(“[T]he FTP server did not contain an index or catalogue or\nother tools for customary and meaningful research.”).\nOn this record, we affirmed the Board’s finding that the\nreference was not publicly accessible even though it had\nbeen uploaded to a website.\n Similarly, in Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election So-\nlutions, Inc., 698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012), there was also\nno evidence that the reference had been meaningfully in-\ndexed or cataloged. But there was “uncontested evidence”\nthat “a person of ordinary skill interested in [the relevant\nsubject matter] would have been independently aware of\n[the website]” and that “such an interested researcher\nwould have found [the reference] using that website’s own\n\f10 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\n\n\n\n\nsearch functions and applying reasonable diligence.” 698\nF.3d at 1381; see also Jazz, 895 F.3d at 1359 (noting “un-\nchallenged findings” that a person of ordinary skill in the\nrelevant art “would have had reason to” find the website at\nissue). In view of these facts, among others, we affirmed a\ndistrict court’s conclusion that the reference was publicly\naccessible. Voter Verified, 698 F.3d at 1381. Thus, while\nindexing is not required to show that a work is publicly ac-\ncessible, some evidence that a person of ordinary skill could\nhave reasonably found the website and then found the ref-\nerence on that website is critical. Acceleration Bay, 908\nF.3d at 773.\n To the extent the Board resolves factual issues in de-\ntermining that a reference is or is not prior art under § 102,\nits factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.\nBlue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1339,\n1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[Substantial evidence] means—and\nmeans only—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind\nmight accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek\nv. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) (internal quota-\ntion marks omitted). The ultimate question of whether a\nreference is prior art under § 102(b), however, is a legal\nquestion we review de novo. Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at\n1339, 1348.\n Samsung argues that the WD4 reference was publicly\naccessible because it was discussed at various JCT-VC\nmeetings, uploaded to the JCT-VC and MPEG websites,\nand emailed to the JCT-VC listserv. We address each ar-\ngument below.\n 1. JCT-VC Meetings\n Samsung argues that the WD4 reference became pub-\nlicly accessible because it was developed at a “prominent\ninternational conference,” Appellant’s Reply Br. 15, and\nwas distributed to attendees, id. at 12–15; Appellant’s Br.\n32–36. Infobridge responds that Samsung actually argues\ndistribution of the WD4 reference at the Torino and Geneva\n\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 11\n\n\n\nmeetings, an argument that Infobridge contends Samsung\nhas waived. To the extent Samsung can be understood to\nbe arguing distribution of the WD4 reference at the Torino\nand Geneva meetings, we agree the argument was waived.\n Before the Board, Samsung did not argue that the WD4\nreference was publicly accessible because it was discussed\nat the Torino meeting or disseminated at the Geneva meet-\ning. In fact, Samsung never mentioned the Geneva meet-\ning. To the extent Samsung mentioned the Torino meeting,\nmoreover, it was related to the JCT-VC website and\nMr. Bross’s email. J.A. 132–39. Samsung conceded as\nmuch at oral argument. See Oral Arg. at 1:23–54\n(“Q. I thought it was pretty clear from your reply brief that\nyou had backed away [from relying on the Torino meeting]?\nA. We have never taken the position before the Board or\nhere that there was a distribution of WD4 at the Torino\nmeeting . . . . Q. But even as to the Geneva meet-\ning . . . . you never relied on that alone? A. We are not re-\nlying on the Geneva meeting . . . .”), available at\nhttp://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/de-\nfault.aspx?fl=2018-2007.mp3. Thus, Samsung waived any\nseparate argument on appeal that the WD4 reference was\npublicly accessible because it was disseminated at the To-\nrino or Geneva meetings. See MCM Portfolio LLC v.\nHewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284, 1294 n.3 (Fed. Cir.\n2015) (deeming arguments not presented to the Board\nwaived on appeal); Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharm. Ltd., 853\nF.3d 1316, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (same).\n Alternately, we agree with Infobridge that, if not\nwaived, any argument based upon distribution of the WD4\nreference at the Torino and Geneva meetings is without\nmerit. The WD4 reference was not created until after the\nTorino meeting. J.A. 7949. The reference therefore could\nnot have been circulated to conference attendees at the\nmeeting itself. Moreover, Samsung conceded at oral argu-\nment that the Geneva meeting occurred after the relevant\ncritical date. Oral Arg. at 1:41–54 (noting that the Geneva\n\f12 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\n\n\n\n\nmeeting occurred “a few days after the one-year period”).\nThus, even if the disclosure at that meeting could establish\npublic accessibility, it would not establish that the WD4\nreference could serve as prior art here.\n 2. JCT-VC and MPEG Websites\n To establish that the WD4 reference was publicly ac-\ncessible once it was uploaded to the JCT-VC website, Sam-\nsung provided a declaration from Mr. Bross where he\ntestified as follows:\n [B]ased on my knowledge and recollection, given\n the prominence of the JCT-VC in the video coding\n industry, persons interested in tracking the devel-\n opments of the latest video coding standard would\n regularly visit the JCT-VC site to ensure that prod-\n ucts and services they were developing were con-\n sistent with the HEVC Standard under\n development.\nFinal Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *5–6 (quoting\nJ.A. 7942). The Board rejected this testimony as “conclu-\nsory and insufficiently factually supported.” Id. at *6. Ac-\ncording to the Board, Mr. Bross had no basis to say whether\nothers “regularly visit[ed]” the JCT-VC website or thought\nit was “prominen[t].” Id.\n Samsung also argued that Infobridge’s expert, Dr.\nFurht, supported Mr. Bross’s testimony. Id. But the Board\nrejected this characterization of Dr. Furht’s testimony. Id.\nAs the Board explained, Dr. Furht acknowledged that he\nwas “probably aware,” before June 2013, that efforts were\nbeing made to develop the H.265 standard. Id. The Board\nconcluded that “this testimony [was] not relevant or proba-\ntive of what persons of skill in the video coding art in gen-\neral knew about WD4” or the JCT-VC website. Id.\n Having rejected Mr. Bross’s testimony, and without ad-\nditional support, the Board concluded that Samsung failed\nto show that ordinarily skilled artisans “who were not part\n\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 13\n\n\n\nof JCT-VC” would have known about or found the JCT-VC\nwebsite. Id. On this basis, the Board found that Samsung\n“d[id] not establish that [the] WD4 [reference] was accessi-\nble to anyone other than members of JCT-VC.” Id.\n The Board also found that a skilled artisan would not\nhave been able to locate the WD4 reference on the JCT-VC\nwebsite—even assuming the JCT-VC website itself was ac-\ncessible—by exercising reasonable diligence. Id. at *7.\nTo support this conclusion, the Board walked through the\nsteps that a person would have to go through to find the\nWD4 reference on the JCT-VC website. Id. As the Board\nexplained, “identifying a meeting location was key to navi-\ngating the JCT-VC site.” Id. In other words, if a person\ndid not know to search for the WD4 reference by looking\nunder the “Torino” folder—named for the Torino meeting—\nthen a person would not have found the WD4 reference. Id.\nBut the Board noted that there was “no evidence” anyone,\noutside those participating in the JCT-VC meetings, would\nhave found “cities . . . helpful in any respect in locating a\ndocument on the site.” Id. This difficulty was compounded\nby the fact that Samsung presented “no evidence that one\ncould search for or locate [the] WD4 [reference] based on its\nsubject matter.” Id. The Board therefore concluded that\nSamsung failed to show that the WD4 reference was pub-\nlicly accessible. Id.\n Samsung argues that the Board failed to consider\nwhether access by members of the JCT-VC could make the\nWD4 reference publicly accessible. Appellant’s Br. 45\n(“The Board improperly required Samsung to prove access\noutside the JCT-VC . . . membership . . . .” (emphasis\nadded)). This error is critical, Samsung insists, because the\nJCT-VC was composed of more than 250 members who\nwere skilled artisans following the development of H.265\nand video coding in general. Id. According to Samsung,\nsharing the WD4 reference among JCT-VC members is like\nan academic presenting a paper at a conference, which we\n\f14 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\n\n\n\n\nhave said can make a work publicly accessible. Id. at 44\n(collecting cases).\n We are not persuaded by Samsung’s analogy. Like the\nBoard, we find SRI is instructive. There, the reference at\nissue was emailed to the organizer of an upcoming sympo-\nsium, Dr. Bishop. SRI, 511 F.3d at 1190. Based on that\nrecord, the district court concluded on summary judgment\nthat the email made the work publicly accessible. Id. at\n1194. On appeal, we remanded based on various disputed\nfacts. As relevant here, we noted that the evidence sug-\ngested “only one non-SRI person, Dr. Bishop, knew about\nthe availability of [the reference].” Id. at 1196 (citing Ap-\nplication of Bayer, 568 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1978)). This “mil-\nitate[d] against a finding of public accessibility.” Id. at\n1197. We reached a similar result in Bayer, where the ref-\nerence at issue, a student thesis, was only accessible to\nmembers of a faculty review committee. 568 F.2d. at 1361\n(concluding that “[a]ccessibility to appellant’s thesis by the\nthree members of the graduate committee under the cir-\ncumstances of the present case” did not demonstrate that\nthe work was publicly accessible); see also SRI, 511 F.3d at\n1196 (noting the similarity between “only one non-SRI per-\nson” having access to a reference and “the knowledge of the\nthesis’s availability by the three professors in Bayer”).\n Taken together, these cases suggest that a work is not\npublicly accessible if the only people who know how to find\nit are the ones who created it. This is why SRI focused on\nthe knowledge of those outside the authoring organization\nand why Bayer discounted the knowledge of various profes-\nsors on a faculty committee reviewing student theses.\nTo hold otherwise would disincentivize collaboration and\ndepart from what it means to publish something.\n The Board’s analysis is consistent with this principle\nand its underlying conclusions are supportable. Unlike the\nconference attendees in GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding\nLLC, 908 F.3d 690 (Fed. Cir. 2018) or Medtronic, Inc. v.\n\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 15\n\n\n\nBarry, 891 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018), JCT-VC members\nwere part of ongoing, collaborative efforts to draft the WD4\nreference. For example, Mr. Bross testified that the WD4\nreference was “developed by the Joint Collaborative Team\non Video Coding (JCT-VC).” J.A. 7936; see also J.A. 5326\n(noting that “[t]he JCT-VC produced . . . the HEVC specifi-\ncation Working Draft 4 (WD4)”). Even if Mr. Bross was the\nlead author of the WD4 reference, we cannot say on this\nrecord that the Board erred in treating the other JCT-VC\nmembers who knew about this ongoing project like the fac-\nulty advisers in Bayer or in-house employees in SRI. The\nBoard therefore properly focused on whether those outside\nof the JCT-VC knew about the JCT-VC website in consid-\nering whether posting the WD4 reference on the website\nmade it publicly accessible.\n Samsung also argues that the Board’s factual findings\nabout the website, and the accessibility of the WD4 refer-\nence on the website, were not supported by substantial ev-\nidence. We disagree. Samsung did not offer evidence,\napart from the speculation of Mr. Bross, that a person of\nordinary skill, exercising reasonable diligence, would have\nlocated the JCT-VC website or even known to look for it.3\nFinal Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *5–6. That\nsets this case apart from Voter Verified and Jazz. Cf. Voter\nVerified, 698 F.3d at 1381 (noting uncontested evidence\nthat persons of ordinary skill in the art knew about the\n\n\n\n 3 Samsung argues that Mr. Bross’s testimony was\n“uncontested” and thus had to be accepted. Appellant’s Br.\nat 49. But the Board is not obligated to accept a witness’s\nspeculation as true. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.62. To the ex-\ntent Samsung argues that the Board erred by excluding the\ntestimony as speculative, moreover, we see no basis to say\nthat the Board abused its discretion. See Intelligent Bio-\nSys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367\n(Fed. Cir. 2016).\n\f16 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\n\n\n\n\nwebsite); Jazz, 895 F.3d at 1359 (same). And, as the Board\nexplained in detail, even a person who found the JCT-VC\nwebsite lacked a reasonable way of locating the WD4 refer-\nence unless they already knew what to look for and where\nto look for it. Id. at *7. This supports the Board’s conclu-\nsion that the WD4 reference would not have been reasona-\nbly accessible even if a skilled artisan knew about the JCT-\nVC website. See Bayer, 568 F.2d at 1361 (“[S]ince appel-\nlant’s thesis could have been located in the university li-\nbrary only by one having been informed of its existence by\nthe faculty committee, and not by means of the customary\nresearch aids available in the library, the ‘probability of\npublic knowledge of the contents of the [thesis],’ was virtu-\nally nil.” (internal citation omitted)); In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d\n1158, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Acceleration Bay, 908 F.3d at\n773. Samsung’s contrary argument simply asks us to re-\nweigh the evidence in its favor. We decline to do so. Re-\ngents of Univ. of California v. Broad Inst., Inc., 903 F.3d\n1286, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It is not our role to ask\nwhether substantial evidence supports fact-findings not\nmade by the Board, but instead whether such evidence sup-\nports the findings that were in fact made. Here, we con-\nclude that it does.”).\n Samsung’s remaining arguments regarding the web-\nsite are similarly unavailing. For example, Samsung in-\nsists that the Board required it to show that the JCT-VC\nwebsite was “advertised outside of” JCT-VC. Appellant’s\nBr. 47. But the Board imposed no such requirement. In-\nstead, it pointed to the lack of advertising as an example,\namong others, of Samsung’s failure to show that those out-\nside of the JCT-VC knew about the JCT-VC website. Final\nWritten Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *6. Samsung also\nargues that the Board required it to show that the WD4\nreference was indexed. Again, the Board did no such thing.\nRather, it noted that the structure of the website, which\norganized content by meeting and lacked a way to search\nby subject matter, meant that a person would only find the\n\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 17\n\n\n\nWD4 reference if they knew where to look. The Board’s\nensuing analysis, as explained above, is consistent with our\nprecedent and factually supported. Samsung also faults\nthe Board for changing its view from its institution deci-\nsions to its final written decisions. We have repeatedly\nsaid, however, that “[t]he Board is free to change its view\nof the merits after further development of the record, and\nshould do so if convinced its initial inclinations were\nwrong.” Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068\n(Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,\n829 F.3d 1364, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he Board has an\nobligation to assess the [validity] question anew after trial\nbased on the totality of the record.”). The Board did just\nthat.\n We reach the same conclusion with respect to the\nMPEG website for the same reasons stated above. Appel-\nlant’s Br. 56 (noting the similarities between the JCT-VC\nwebsite and the MPEG website). In particular, the Board’s\nconclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would\nnot have been able to find the WD4 reference on the MPEG\nwebsite, even after exercising reasonable diligence, is sup-\nported by substantial evidence. Final Written Decision,\n2018 WL 1940480 at *7–9.\n 3. JCT-VC Listserv\n Samsung last argues that the WD4 reference was pub-\nlicly accessible because Mr. Bross emailed it to the JCT-VC\nlistserv. On this point, Mr. Bross testified that the listserv\nincluded 254 JCT-VC members and other “interested indi-\nviduals.” J.A. 7947–48. Mr. Bross further testified that\n“any person could subscribe to the JCT-VC reflector by re-\nquesting a subscription at the JCT-VC reflector manage-\nment site” and “anyone with a valid e-mail address\nrequesting subscription was typically approved.”\nJ.A. 7948.\n The Board credited this evidence, at least in part.\nFor example, the Board found that Mr. Bross emailed a\n\f18 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\n\n\n\n\nlink to the WD4 reference to the listserv in October 2011.\nFinal Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *9. It also\nagreed that the listserv may have included “others who\nmay have opted into the [listserv].” Id. The Board, how-\never, found this evidence insufficient to establish public ac-\ncessibility because it could not determine that “those 254\nindividuals represented a significant portion of those inter-\nested and skilled in the art.” Id. Instead, the Board viewed\nthe email as a “limited distribution” that did not show the\nwork was “generally disseminated to persons interested\nand ordinarily skilled in the art.” Id.\n Samsung argues that the Board erred by confusing ac-\ncess with accessibility. We agree. Our cases have consist-\nently held that the standard for public accessibility is\nwhether a person of ordinary skill in the art could, after\nexercising reasonable diligence, access a reference. Jazz,\n895 F.3d at 1355–56 (“A reference is considered publicly\naccessible upon a satisfactory showing that such document\nhas been disseminated or otherwise made available to the\nextent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the\nsubject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can\nlocate it. If accessibility is proved, there is no requirement\nto show that particular members of the public actually re-\nceived the information.” (internal quotation marks and ci-\ntations omitted)); In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed.\nCir. 2009) (“[O]ur cases have held that once accessibility is\nshown, it is unnecessary to show that anyone actually in-\nspected the reference.”); Constant v. Advanced Micro-De-\nvices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“If\naccessibility is proved, there is no requirement to show that\nparticular members of the public actually received the in-\nformation.”). Thus, a petitioner need not establish that\nspecific persons actually accessed or received a work to\nshow that the work was publicly accessible.\n The Board departed from this well-established princi-\nple by repeatedly faulting Samsung for not proving that the\nWD4 reference was “generally” or “widely” disseminated.\n\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 19\n\n\n\nFinal Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *9. In fact,\na limited distribution can make a work publicly accessible\nunder certain circumstances. See, e.g., GoPro, 908 F.3d at\n694. But the Board’s analysis stopped short of considering\nwhether those circumstances were present here. The\nBoard also faulted Samsung for failing to show that the\nemail recipients “represented a significant portion of those\ninterested and skilled in the art.” Final Written Decision,\n2018 WL 1940480 at *9. That was not Samsung’s burden.\nSee, e.g., Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. AB Fortia, 774 F.2d 1104\n(Fed. Cir. 1985) (distribution to six conference attendees\nmade work publicly accessible). The Board’s decision to re-\nject Samsung’s evidence because it did not establish that\nenough interested and ordinarily skilled artisans actually\nobtained the WD4 reference was therefore erroneous.\n Infobridge offers no substantive response on this point.\nInfobridge actually agrees that the relevant question here\nis “the extent that [the WD4 reference] could b[e] located\nby an interested person exercising reasonable diligence.”\nAppellee’s Br. 28 (emphasis added). Infobridge simply ar-\ngues that the Board applied this test here. We are not per-\nsuaded. As noted above, the only rationales offered by the\nBoard on this issue were legally erroneous. 4 In re NuVa-\nsive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The PTAB’s\nown explanation must suffice for us to see that the agency\nhas done its job . . . .”).\n\n\n\n\n 4 The Board’s rationales and conclusions with re-\nspect to the JCT-VC and MPEG websites do not suffer from\nthis same defect. See, e.g., Final Written Decision, 2018 WL\n1940480 at *7 (“Although the JCT-VC site was organized\nin a hierarchical manner, the evidence does not establish\n[that the] WD4 [reference] was indexed in a manner that\none ordinarily skilled in the art, exercising reasonable dil-\nigence, could locate it.” (emphasis added)).\n\f20 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\n\n\n\n\n Rather than requiring Samsung to prove that persons\nof ordinary skill actually received the listserv email, the\nBoard should have considered whether Samsung’s evi-\ndence established that an ordinarily skilled artisan could\nhave accessed the WD4 reference, after exercising reason-\nable diligence, based on the listserv email. This might in-\nclude examining whether a person of ordinary skill,\nexercising reasonable diligence, would have joined the\nlistserv. See, e.g., GoPro, 908 F.3d at 694. It also might\ninclude considering the circumstances of the email itself,\nfor example why the email was sent and whether it was\ncovered by an expectation of confidentiality. See, e.g.,\nMass. Inst. of Tech., 774 F.2d at 1109. Because the record\nis not clear on these factual questions, we decline to resolve\nthem in the first instance on appeal. See, e.g., Medtronic,\n891 F.3d at 1381–83 (remanding for the Board to consider\nthe public accessibility question). In particular, we are re-\nluctant to assume that an email among potential collabo-\nrators should be treated the same as a public disclosure\nwithout clear findings by the Board. Accordingly, we va-\ncate the Board’s finding that Mr. Bross’s email did not\nmake the WD4 reference publicly accessible and remand so\nthat the Board can consider this issue after applying the\ncorrect legal standard.\n III. CONCLUSION\n We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments\nand find them unpersuasive. Ultimately, the Board ap-\nplied an erroneous legal standard in concluding that the\nlistserv email did not make the WD4 reference publicly ac-\ncessible. We therefore vacate the Board’s findings on this\npoint and remand for further proceedings consistent with\nthis opinion.\n VACATED AND REMANDED\n COSTS\n No costs.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Appellant v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD., Appellee\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-2007, 2018-2012\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark\\nOffice, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2017-\\n00099, IPR2017-00100.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 12, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n STEPHEN BLAKE KINNAIRD, Paul Hastings LLP, Wash-\\nington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by\\nNAVEEN MODI, QUADEER AHMED, JOSEPH PALYS, IGOR\\nVICTOR TIMOFEYEV, MICHAEL WOLFE, DANIEL ZEILBERGER.\\n\\n MICHAEL NEWMAN, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky\\nand Popeo, PC, Boston, MA, argued for appellee. Also rep-\\nresented by WILLIAM MEUNIER, KONGSIK KIM, MICHAEL\\nTIMOTHY RENAUD.\\n ______________________\\n\\nBefore NEWMAN, SCHALL, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f2 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nO’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.\\n In two inter partes review proceedings requested by\\nSamsung, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”)\\nupheld all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 8,917,772 (“the\\n’772 patent”), which is owned by Infobridge. The Board up-\\nheld the claims because it found that Samsung failed to\\nshow that a certain prior art reference was publicly acces-\\nsible before the ’772 patent’s critical date and thus could\\nnot be considered prior art. Samsung appeals the Board’s\\ndecisions, insisting that it has standing to do so and argu-\\ning, among other things, that the Board applied the wrong\\nlegal standard in assessing public accessibility. We agree\\nwith Samsung on both issues. We therefore vacate the\\nBoard’s decisions and remand for further consideration.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n A. The Technology\\n The ’772 Patent, titled “Method of Constructing Merge\\nList,” generally relates to encoding and decoding video\\ndata. Both parties agree for purposes of this appeal that\\nthe patented methods are essential to the High Efficiency\\nVideo Coding standard (“the H.265 standard”).\\n B. The Prior Art\\n The sole prior art reference at issue on appeal is Work-\\ning Draft 4 of the H.265 standard (“the WD4 reference”),\\nwhich was developed by the Joint Collaborative Team on\\nVideo Coding (“JCT-VC”). Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd v. Info-\\nbridge Pte. Ltd, IPR2017-00099, 2018 WL 1940480 at *2\\n(P.T.A.B. April 23, 2018) (“Final Written Decision”). 1\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 We will refer to the final written decision from\\nIPR2017-00099 in this opinion because the final written\\ndecisions in both proceedings are substantially simi-\\nlar. See also Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge Pte.\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 3\\n\\n\\n\\nThe key question here is whether the WD4 reference was\\npublicly accessible prior to the ’772 patent’s critical date.\\nSamsung points to three examples of disclosures that it\\nclaims, independently or together, establish public accessi-\\nbility. Each are discussed below.\\n 1. JCT-VC Meetings\\n JCT-VC members met to discuss the H.265 standard,\\nthen under development, during a July 2011 meeting in To-\\nrino, Italy (“the Torino meeting”). This meeting included\\nabout 250 participants, ranging from academics to repre-\\nsentatives from various technology companies. One of the\\n“primary goals” for the Torino meeting was developing the\\nWD4 reference. J.A. 5327. In November 2011, at the next\\nJCT-VC meeting in Geneva, Switzerland (“the Geneva\\nmeeting”), the WD4 reference was discussed and ulti-\\nmately “approved.” J.A. 5587.\\n 2. JCT-VC and MPEG Websites\\n During this same time, the JCT-VC maintained a web-\\nsite allowing users to access various JCT-VC materials.\\nThe WD4 reference was uploaded to the JCT-VC’s website\\non October 4, 2011. Final Written Decision, 2018 WL\\n1940480 at *5. To access the WD4 reference, users needed\\nto follow at least four steps. First, they had to navigate to\\nthe JCT-VC website. J.A. 7026. Next, they had to select a\\nmenu option to view information about “All meetings” held\\nby the JCT-VC. J.A. 7029. Then a user would need to se-\\nlect “Torino” from the list of available meeting options,\\nwhich were not identified by subject matter. Id. At this\\npoint, the user would see a list of “hundreds” of documents\\norganized by an identifying number rather than subject\\nmatter. Final Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *4;\\nsee also J.A. 7034–7081 (listing the documents). From this\\n\\n\\nLtd., IPR2017-00100, 2018 WL 1936069 (P.T.A.B. April 23,\\n2018).\\n\\f4 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nlist, a user would need to select the WD4 reference, titled\\n“WD4: Working Draft of High-Efficiency Video Coding.”\\nJ.A. 7080.\\n The WD4 reference was also uploaded to a website\\nmaintained by the Moving Picture Expert Group\\n(“MPEG”), a parent organization of the JCT-VC, on Octo-\\nber 4, 2011. Final Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at\\n*2–3, *5. The MPEG website was arranged in a manner\\nsimilar to the JCT-VC website, i.e., a user would need to\\nnavigate to the relevant meeting and then select the rele-\\nvant document. Id. at *8–9. But, unlike the JCT-VC web-\\nsite, the MPEG website required users to have a login and\\npassword to access materials. Id. at *7.\\n 3. JCT-VC Listserv\\n On October 4, 2011, the same day it was uploaded to\\nthe Internet, Benjamin Bross—the lead author of the WD4\\nreference—emailed the reference to a JCT-VC listserv.\\nJ.A. 6377. According to Mr. Bross, the listserv included\\nJCT-VC members who had attended the Torino meeting as\\nwell as other “interested individuals.” J.A. 7947. Mr.\\nBross’s email included a download link for the WD4 refer-\\nence. Final Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *9.\\n C. The Board’s Decisions\\n Samsung filed two inter partes review petitions chal-\\nlenging claims 1–7 (IPR2017-00099) and claims 8–9\\n(IPR2017-00100) of the ’772 patent on October 17, 2016.\\nThe Board instituted as to all challenged claims. In both\\nproceedings, the Board’s institution decisions relied on\\nprior art combinations including the WD4 reference. In its\\nfinal written decisions, however, the Board concluded that\\nthe WD4 reference was not publicly accessible prior to the\\n’772 patent’s critical date and therefore could not be prior\\nart. Id. at *10.\\n As to the JCT-VC website, the Board concluded that\\nthere was “insufficient competent evidence” to show that a\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 5\\n\\n\\n\\nperson of ordinary skill in the art “would [have] know[n] to\\ncheck the JCT-VC site for information of relevance to the\\nart.” Id. at *5. Although Samsung offered testimony from\\nMr. Bross on this point, the Board rejected his testimony\\nas “conclusory and insufficiently factually supported” be-\\ncause Mr. Bross could not testify about whether others\\nwould have navigated to the JCT-VC website to learn about\\ndevelopments in video coding. Id. at *6. The Board there-\\nfore found that Samsung could not “establish that WD4\\nwas accessible to anyone other than members of JCT-VC”\\nduring the relevant time period. Id. The Board went on to\\nexplain that, assuming a person of ordinary skill might\\nhave known about the JCT-VC website, there was no evi-\\ndence that such a person would have located the WD4 ref-\\nerence on the website by exercising reasonable diligence.\\nId. at *7 (“Although the JCT-VC site was organized in a\\nhierarchical manner, the evidence does not establish WD4\\nwas indexed in a manner that one ordinarily skilled in the\\nart, exercising reasonable diligence, could locate it.”).\\n The Board reached the same conclusion with respect to\\nthe MPEG website for essentially the same reasons. Id. at\\n*7–9. For example, the Board again faulted Samsung for\\noffering only “conclusory and factually unsupported” asser-\\ntions that those skilled in the art were aware of the MPEG\\nwebsite. Id. at *8. The Board also found that, even if some-\\none could have found the MPEG website, they would not\\nhave been able to reasonably find the WD4 reference. Id.\\n(“[W]e also find Samsung has failed to present evidence\\nthat a person interested and skilled in the art could rea-\\nsonably have found WD4 on the MPEG site in October\\n2011, even if the user had access and knew the reference\\nwas there.”).\\n As to the listserv email sent by Mr. Bross, the Board\\nfound Mr. Bross’s testimony that the email was sent to in-\\ndividuals outside the JCT-VC as “nothing more than con-\\njecture and speculation.” Id. at *9. The Board went on to\\nconclude:\\n\\f6 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n We find Mr. Bross’s email to the JCT-VC [listserv]\\n was, at best, a limited distribution of a link to the\\n WD4 document information webpage to a select\\n group, the members of JCT-VC and perhaps others\\n who may have opted into the reflector. We also find\\n Mr. Bross’s testimony is insufficient to establish\\n that the e-mail with the link to the WD4 document\\n information webpage was generally disseminated\\n to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the\\n art. “[T]his record does not evince that [WD4] was\\n accessible to anyone other than the [JCT-VC], thus\\n further suggesting an absence of actual public ac-\\n cessibility.”\\nId. at *9 (quoting SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,\\n511 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (first alteration\\nadded).\\n The Board did not address whether the WD4 reference\\nwas publicly accessible because it had been disseminated\\nat the Torino or Geneva meetings.\\n Samsung timely appealed the Board’s final decisions.\\nWe have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n Samsung’s sole argument on appeal is that the Board\\nerred by finding that the WD4 reference was not publicly\\naccessible prior to the ’772 patent’s critical date. We turn\\nto this argument below after addressing whether Samsung\\nhas standing to bring this appeal in the first place.\\n A. Standing\\n Federal courts exercise their judicial power according\\nto limits imposed by Congress and the Constitution.\\nSpokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1546–47 (2016).\\nThese constitutional limits establish “the category of liti-\\ngants empowered to maintain a lawsuit in federal courts to\\nseek redress for a legal wrong.” Id. at 1547. And they apply\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 7\\n\\n\\n\\nat every stage of a case before a federal court, including on\\nappeal. Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., 845 F.3d 1168,\\n1171–72 (Fed. Cir. 2017). To clear this constitutional\\nthreshold, the party seeking to invoke our judicial power\\nmust show that it has suffered a “concrete and particular-\\nized” injury that is either actual or imminent. Lujan v.\\nDefs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). It must also\\nshow that this injury is fairly traceable to its adversary and\\nlikely to be redressed by a favorable ruling. Id.\\n We have “an independent obligation to assure that\\nstanding exists, regardless of whether it is challenged by\\nany of the parties.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555\\nU.S. 488, 499 (2009). Here, Samsung raised the issue of\\nstanding in its opening brief. Infobridge did not contest\\nthat Samsung has standing in response, but we think it is\\nnecessary to address the question.\\n Samsung’s standing argument turns on its relationship\\nto Infobridge and the ’772 patent. According to uncontro-\\nverted evidence provided by Samsung, the ’772 patent is\\nlicensed as part of a “pool” of patents, including some\\nowned by Samsung, that have been declared essential to\\nthe H.265 standard. Appellant’s Br. 59. Licensees pay a\\nfixed royalty for the pooled patents and then members who\\nown patents in the pool divide that royalty based on the\\nnumber of patents in the pool. By the express terms of the\\nlicense, if a pool patent is declared invalid, it is removed\\nfrom the pool and the other members thereafter receive a\\nhigher proportion of the fixed royalty. Members of the pool,\\nlike Samsung, therefore stand to gain if another pool pa-\\ntent is invalidated and removed from the pool.\\n Against this backdrop, Samsung argues that it is being\\n“depriv[ed]” of royalty payments and that “[t]his depriva-\\ntion of royalties is the kind of ‘concrete and particularized’\\neconomic injury that satisfies the Article III requirement.”\\nId. (quoting Phigenix, 845 F.3d at 1171). We agree with\\nSamsung that, under the facts and circumstances of this\\n\\f8 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ncase, its injury confers Article III standing. See, e.g., Chou\\nv. Univ. of Chicago, 254 F.3d 1347, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001)\\n(“If Chou has indeed been deprived of an interest in pro-\\nceeds from licensing the invention . . . then she will have\\nsuffered an injury-in-fact, i.e., the loss of those benefits”).\\nThis injury can be traced directly to the validity of Info-\\nbridge’s patent and would be redressed by a favorable de-\\ncision for Samsung. While other licensing and royalty\\nstructures might compel a different result where other\\nstandard-essential patents are involved, the unique pool li-\\ncense here satisfies us that Samsung has standing in this\\nappeal.\\n Accordingly, we proceed to the merits of Samsung’s ap-\\npeal.\\n B. Public Accessibility\\n A person is not entitled to a patent if their invention\\nwas “described in a printed publication . . . more than one\\nyear prior to the date of the[ir patent] application.”\\n35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2006). 2 We have read this statutory\\ntext as imposing two requirements: (1) that a putative prior\\nart reference be printed and (2) that the reference be pub-\\nlished, i.e., accessible to the public. In re Wyer, 655 F.2d\\n221, 225 (CCPA 1981). We have emphasized, however,\\nthat what constitutes a “printed publication” must be de-\\ntermined in light of the technology employed, id. at 226,\\nand that it is public accessibility that is the “touchstone,”\\nJazz Pharm., Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC, 895 F.3d 1347,\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 In 2011, Congress amended § 102 as part of the\\nAmerica Invents Act (“AIA”). See Leahy-Smith America\\nInvents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 3(b)(1), 125 Stat. 284,\\n285–86 (2011). This opinion applies the pre-AIA version\\nof § 102 because the ’772 patent does not contain any\\nclaims or reference to claims that have an effective filing\\ndate on or after March 16, 2013.\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 9\\n\\n\\n\\n1355 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).\\nA reference is considered publicly accessible if “persons in-\\nterested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art,\\nexercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Acceleration\\nBay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772\\n(Fed. Cir. 2018). In some cases, this inquiry is straightfor-\\nward. But in other cases, public accessibility depends on a\\ncareful, case-by-case examination of how a particular ref-\\nerence was disseminated, to whom, for how long, and under\\nwhat circumstances. Jazz, 895 F.3d at 1357.\\n When a reference is uploaded to a website or deposited\\nin a library, the fact that the reference is indexed or cata-\\nloged in some way can indicate that it is publicly accessible.\\nIn Acceleration Bay, for example, the reference at issue was\\nuploaded to a university website. 908 F.3d at 773. While\\nthis made the work technically accessible—someone could\\ntheoretically find it on the Internet—we explained that\\n“public accessibility requires more than technical accessi-\\nbility.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). And while\\nthe website indexed references “by author and year,” we\\nagreed with the Board that this did not mean the reference\\nat issue had been “meaningfully indexed such that an in-\\nterested artisan exercising reasonable diligence would\\nhave found it.” Id. at 774; see also SRI, 511 F.3d at 1196\\n(“[T]he FTP server did not contain an index or catalogue or\\nother tools for customary and meaningful research.”).\\nOn this record, we affirmed the Board’s finding that the\\nreference was not publicly accessible even though it had\\nbeen uploaded to a website.\\n Similarly, in Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election So-\\nlutions, Inc., 698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012), there was also\\nno evidence that the reference had been meaningfully in-\\ndexed or cataloged. But there was “uncontested evidence”\\nthat “a person of ordinary skill interested in [the relevant\\nsubject matter] would have been independently aware of\\n[the website]” and that “such an interested researcher\\nwould have found [the reference] using that website’s own\\n\\f10 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nsearch functions and applying reasonable diligence.” 698\\nF.3d at 1381; see also Jazz, 895 F.3d at 1359 (noting “un-\\nchallenged findings” that a person of ordinary skill in the\\nrelevant art “would have had reason to” find the website at\\nissue). In view of these facts, among others, we affirmed a\\ndistrict court’s conclusion that the reference was publicly\\naccessible. Voter Verified, 698 F.3d at 1381. Thus, while\\nindexing is not required to show that a work is publicly ac-\\ncessible, some evidence that a person of ordinary skill could\\nhave reasonably found the website and then found the ref-\\nerence on that website is critical. Acceleration Bay, 908\\nF.3d at 773.\\n To the extent the Board resolves factual issues in de-\\ntermining that a reference is or is not prior art under § 102,\\nits factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.\\nBlue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1339,\\n1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[Substantial evidence] means—and\\nmeans only—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind\\nmight accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek\\nv. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) (internal quota-\\ntion marks omitted). The ultimate question of whether a\\nreference is prior art under § 102(b), however, is a legal\\nquestion we review de novo. Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at\\n1339, 1348.\\n Samsung argues that the WD4 reference was publicly\\naccessible because it was discussed at various JCT-VC\\nmeetings, uploaded to the JCT-VC and MPEG websites,\\nand emailed to the JCT-VC listserv. We address each ar-\\ngument below.\\n 1. JCT-VC Meetings\\n Samsung argues that the WD4 reference became pub-\\nlicly accessible because it was developed at a “prominent\\ninternational conference,” Appellant’s Reply Br. 15, and\\nwas distributed to attendees, id. at 12–15; Appellant’s Br.\\n32–36. Infobridge responds that Samsung actually argues\\ndistribution of the WD4 reference at the Torino and Geneva\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 11\\n\\n\\n\\nmeetings, an argument that Infobridge contends Samsung\\nhas waived. To the extent Samsung can be understood to\\nbe arguing distribution of the WD4 reference at the Torino\\nand Geneva meetings, we agree the argument was waived.\\n Before the Board, Samsung did not argue that the WD4\\nreference was publicly accessible because it was discussed\\nat the Torino meeting or disseminated at the Geneva meet-\\ning. In fact, Samsung never mentioned the Geneva meet-\\ning. To the extent Samsung mentioned the Torino meeting,\\nmoreover, it was related to the JCT-VC website and\\nMr. Bross’s email. J.A. 132–39. Samsung conceded as\\nmuch at oral argument. See Oral Arg. at 1:23–54\\n(“Q. I thought it was pretty clear from your reply brief that\\nyou had backed away [from relying on the Torino meeting]?\\nA. We have never taken the position before the Board or\\nhere that there was a distribution of WD4 at the Torino\\nmeeting . . . . Q. But even as to the Geneva meet-\\ning . . . . you never relied on that alone? A. We are not re-\\nlying on the Geneva meeting . . . .”), available at\\nhttp://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/de-\\nfault.aspx?fl=2018-2007.mp3. Thus, Samsung waived any\\nseparate argument on appeal that the WD4 reference was\\npublicly accessible because it was disseminated at the To-\\nrino or Geneva meetings. See MCM Portfolio LLC v.\\nHewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284, 1294 n.3 (Fed. Cir.\\n2015) (deeming arguments not presented to the Board\\nwaived on appeal); Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharm. Ltd., 853\\nF.3d 1316, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (same).\\n Alternately, we agree with Infobridge that, if not\\nwaived, any argument based upon distribution of the WD4\\nreference at the Torino and Geneva meetings is without\\nmerit. The WD4 reference was not created until after the\\nTorino meeting. J.A. 7949. The reference therefore could\\nnot have been circulated to conference attendees at the\\nmeeting itself. Moreover, Samsung conceded at oral argu-\\nment that the Geneva meeting occurred after the relevant\\ncritical date. Oral Arg. at 1:41–54 (noting that the Geneva\\n\\f12 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nmeeting occurred “a few days after the one-year period”).\\nThus, even if the disclosure at that meeting could establish\\npublic accessibility, it would not establish that the WD4\\nreference could serve as prior art here.\\n 2. JCT-VC and MPEG Websites\\n To establish that the WD4 reference was publicly ac-\\ncessible once it was uploaded to the JCT-VC website, Sam-\\nsung provided a declaration from Mr. Bross where he\\ntestified as follows:\\n [B]ased on my knowledge and recollection, given\\n the prominence of the JCT-VC in the video coding\\n industry, persons interested in tracking the devel-\\n opments of the latest video coding standard would\\n regularly visit the JCT-VC site to ensure that prod-\\n ucts and services they were developing were con-\\n sistent with the HEVC Standard under\\n development.\\nFinal Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *5–6 (quoting\\nJ.A. 7942). The Board rejected this testimony as “conclu-\\nsory and insufficiently factually supported.” Id. at *6. Ac-\\ncording to the Board, Mr. Bross had no basis to say whether\\nothers “regularly visit[ed]” the JCT-VC website or thought\\nit was “prominen[t].” Id.\\n Samsung also argued that Infobridge’s expert, Dr.\\nFurht, supported Mr. Bross’s testimony. Id. But the Board\\nrejected this characterization of Dr. Furht’s testimony. Id.\\nAs the Board explained, Dr. Furht acknowledged that he\\nwas “probably aware,” before June 2013, that efforts were\\nbeing made to develop the H.265 standard. Id. The Board\\nconcluded that “this testimony [was] not relevant or proba-\\ntive of what persons of skill in the video coding art in gen-\\neral knew about WD4” or the JCT-VC website. Id.\\n Having rejected Mr. Bross’s testimony, and without ad-\\nditional support, the Board concluded that Samsung failed\\nto show that ordinarily skilled artisans “who were not part\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 13\\n\\n\\n\\nof JCT-VC” would have known about or found the JCT-VC\\nwebsite. Id. On this basis, the Board found that Samsung\\n“d[id] not establish that [the] WD4 [reference] was accessi-\\nble to anyone other than members of JCT-VC.” Id.\\n The Board also found that a skilled artisan would not\\nhave been able to locate the WD4 reference on the JCT-VC\\nwebsite—even assuming the JCT-VC website itself was ac-\\ncessible—by exercising reasonable diligence. Id. at *7.\\nTo support this conclusion, the Board walked through the\\nsteps that a person would have to go through to find the\\nWD4 reference on the JCT-VC website. Id. As the Board\\nexplained, “identifying a meeting location was key to navi-\\ngating the JCT-VC site.” Id. In other words, if a person\\ndid not know to search for the WD4 reference by looking\\nunder the “Torino” folder—named for the Torino meeting—\\nthen a person would not have found the WD4 reference. Id.\\nBut the Board noted that there was “no evidence” anyone,\\noutside those participating in the JCT-VC meetings, would\\nhave found “cities . . . helpful in any respect in locating a\\ndocument on the site.” Id. This difficulty was compounded\\nby the fact that Samsung presented “no evidence that one\\ncould search for or locate [the] WD4 [reference] based on its\\nsubject matter.” Id. The Board therefore concluded that\\nSamsung failed to show that the WD4 reference was pub-\\nlicly accessible. Id.\\n Samsung argues that the Board failed to consider\\nwhether access by members of the JCT-VC could make the\\nWD4 reference publicly accessible. Appellant’s Br. 45\\n(“The Board improperly required Samsung to prove access\\noutside the JCT-VC . . . membership . . . .” (emphasis\\nadded)). This error is critical, Samsung insists, because the\\nJCT-VC was composed of more than 250 members who\\nwere skilled artisans following the development of H.265\\nand video coding in general. Id. According to Samsung,\\nsharing the WD4 reference among JCT-VC members is like\\nan academic presenting a paper at a conference, which we\\n\\f14 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nhave said can make a work publicly accessible. Id. at 44\\n(collecting cases).\\n We are not persuaded by Samsung’s analogy. Like the\\nBoard, we find SRI is instructive. There, the reference at\\nissue was emailed to the organizer of an upcoming sympo-\\nsium, Dr. Bishop. SRI, 511 F.3d at 1190. Based on that\\nrecord, the district court concluded on summary judgment\\nthat the email made the work publicly accessible. Id. at\\n1194. On appeal, we remanded based on various disputed\\nfacts. As relevant here, we noted that the evidence sug-\\ngested “only one non-SRI person, Dr. Bishop, knew about\\nthe availability of [the reference].” Id. at 1196 (citing Ap-\\nplication of Bayer, 568 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1978)). This “mil-\\nitate[d] against a finding of public accessibility.” Id. at\\n1197. We reached a similar result in Bayer, where the ref-\\nerence at issue, a student thesis, was only accessible to\\nmembers of a faculty review committee. 568 F.2d. at 1361\\n(concluding that “[a]ccessibility to appellant’s thesis by the\\nthree members of the graduate committee under the cir-\\ncumstances of the present case” did not demonstrate that\\nthe work was publicly accessible); see also SRI, 511 F.3d at\\n1196 (noting the similarity between “only one non-SRI per-\\nson” having access to a reference and “the knowledge of the\\nthesis’s availability by the three professors in Bayer”).\\n Taken together, these cases suggest that a work is not\\npublicly accessible if the only people who know how to find\\nit are the ones who created it. This is why SRI focused on\\nthe knowledge of those outside the authoring organization\\nand why Bayer discounted the knowledge of various profes-\\nsors on a faculty committee reviewing student theses.\\nTo hold otherwise would disincentivize collaboration and\\ndepart from what it means to publish something.\\n The Board’s analysis is consistent with this principle\\nand its underlying conclusions are supportable. Unlike the\\nconference attendees in GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding\\nLLC, 908 F.3d 690 (Fed. Cir. 2018) or Medtronic, Inc. v.\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 15\\n\\n\\n\\nBarry, 891 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018), JCT-VC members\\nwere part of ongoing, collaborative efforts to draft the WD4\\nreference. For example, Mr. Bross testified that the WD4\\nreference was “developed by the Joint Collaborative Team\\non Video Coding (JCT-VC).” J.A. 7936; see also J.A. 5326\\n(noting that “[t]he JCT-VC produced . . . the HEVC specifi-\\ncation Working Draft 4 (WD4)”). Even if Mr. Bross was the\\nlead author of the WD4 reference, we cannot say on this\\nrecord that the Board erred in treating the other JCT-VC\\nmembers who knew about this ongoing project like the fac-\\nulty advisers in Bayer or in-house employees in SRI. The\\nBoard therefore properly focused on whether those outside\\nof the JCT-VC knew about the JCT-VC website in consid-\\nering whether posting the WD4 reference on the website\\nmade it publicly accessible.\\n Samsung also argues that the Board’s factual findings\\nabout the website, and the accessibility of the WD4 refer-\\nence on the website, were not supported by substantial ev-\\nidence. We disagree. Samsung did not offer evidence,\\napart from the speculation of Mr. Bross, that a person of\\nordinary skill, exercising reasonable diligence, would have\\nlocated the JCT-VC website or even known to look for it.3\\nFinal Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *5–6. That\\nsets this case apart from Voter Verified and Jazz. Cf. Voter\\nVerified, 698 F.3d at 1381 (noting uncontested evidence\\nthat persons of ordinary skill in the art knew about the\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 Samsung argues that Mr. Bross’s testimony was\\n“uncontested” and thus had to be accepted. Appellant’s Br.\\nat 49. But the Board is not obligated to accept a witness’s\\nspeculation as true. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.62. To the ex-\\ntent Samsung argues that the Board erred by excluding the\\ntestimony as speculative, moreover, we see no basis to say\\nthat the Board abused its discretion. See Intelligent Bio-\\nSys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367\\n(Fed. Cir. 2016).\\n\\f16 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nwebsite); Jazz, 895 F.3d at 1359 (same). And, as the Board\\nexplained in detail, even a person who found the JCT-VC\\nwebsite lacked a reasonable way of locating the WD4 refer-\\nence unless they already knew what to look for and where\\nto look for it. Id. at *7. This supports the Board’s conclu-\\nsion that the WD4 reference would not have been reasona-\\nbly accessible even if a skilled artisan knew about the JCT-\\nVC website. See Bayer, 568 F.2d at 1361 (“[S]ince appel-\\nlant’s thesis could have been located in the university li-\\nbrary only by one having been informed of its existence by\\nthe faculty committee, and not by means of the customary\\nresearch aids available in the library, the ‘probability of\\npublic knowledge of the contents of the [thesis],’ was virtu-\\nally nil.” (internal citation omitted)); In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d\\n1158, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Acceleration Bay, 908 F.3d at\\n773. Samsung’s contrary argument simply asks us to re-\\nweigh the evidence in its favor. We decline to do so. Re-\\ngents of Univ. of California v. Broad Inst., Inc., 903 F.3d\\n1286, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It is not our role to ask\\nwhether substantial evidence supports fact-findings not\\nmade by the Board, but instead whether such evidence sup-\\nports the findings that were in fact made. Here, we con-\\nclude that it does.”).\\n Samsung’s remaining arguments regarding the web-\\nsite are similarly unavailing. For example, Samsung in-\\nsists that the Board required it to show that the JCT-VC\\nwebsite was “advertised outside of” JCT-VC. Appellant’s\\nBr. 47. But the Board imposed no such requirement. In-\\nstead, it pointed to the lack of advertising as an example,\\namong others, of Samsung’s failure to show that those out-\\nside of the JCT-VC knew about the JCT-VC website. Final\\nWritten Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *6. Samsung also\\nargues that the Board required it to show that the WD4\\nreference was indexed. Again, the Board did no such thing.\\nRather, it noted that the structure of the website, which\\norganized content by meeting and lacked a way to search\\nby subject matter, meant that a person would only find the\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 17\\n\\n\\n\\nWD4 reference if they knew where to look. The Board’s\\nensuing analysis, as explained above, is consistent with our\\nprecedent and factually supported. Samsung also faults\\nthe Board for changing its view from its institution deci-\\nsions to its final written decisions. We have repeatedly\\nsaid, however, that “[t]he Board is free to change its view\\nof the merits after further development of the record, and\\nshould do so if convinced its initial inclinations were\\nwrong.” Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068\\n(Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,\\n829 F.3d 1364, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he Board has an\\nobligation to assess the [validity] question anew after trial\\nbased on the totality of the record.”). The Board did just\\nthat.\\n We reach the same conclusion with respect to the\\nMPEG website for the same reasons stated above. Appel-\\nlant’s Br. 56 (noting the similarities between the JCT-VC\\nwebsite and the MPEG website). In particular, the Board’s\\nconclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would\\nnot have been able to find the WD4 reference on the MPEG\\nwebsite, even after exercising reasonable diligence, is sup-\\nported by substantial evidence. Final Written Decision,\\n2018 WL 1940480 at *7–9.\\n 3. JCT-VC Listserv\\n Samsung last argues that the WD4 reference was pub-\\nlicly accessible because Mr. Bross emailed it to the JCT-VC\\nlistserv. On this point, Mr. Bross testified that the listserv\\nincluded 254 JCT-VC members and other “interested indi-\\nviduals.” J.A. 7947–48. Mr. Bross further testified that\\n“any person could subscribe to the JCT-VC reflector by re-\\nquesting a subscription at the JCT-VC reflector manage-\\nment site” and “anyone with a valid e-mail address\\nrequesting subscription was typically approved.”\\nJ.A. 7948.\\n The Board credited this evidence, at least in part.\\nFor example, the Board found that Mr. Bross emailed a\\n\\f18 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nlink to the WD4 reference to the listserv in October 2011.\\nFinal Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *9. It also\\nagreed that the listserv may have included “others who\\nmay have opted into the [listserv].” Id. The Board, how-\\never, found this evidence insufficient to establish public ac-\\ncessibility because it could not determine that “those 254\\nindividuals represented a significant portion of those inter-\\nested and skilled in the art.” Id. Instead, the Board viewed\\nthe email as a “limited distribution” that did not show the\\nwork was “generally disseminated to persons interested\\nand ordinarily skilled in the art.” Id.\\n Samsung argues that the Board erred by confusing ac-\\ncess with accessibility. We agree. Our cases have consist-\\nently held that the standard for public accessibility is\\nwhether a person of ordinary skill in the art could, after\\nexercising reasonable diligence, access a reference. Jazz,\\n895 F.3d at 1355–56 (“A reference is considered publicly\\naccessible upon a satisfactory showing that such document\\nhas been disseminated or otherwise made available to the\\nextent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the\\nsubject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can\\nlocate it. If accessibility is proved, there is no requirement\\nto show that particular members of the public actually re-\\nceived the information.” (internal quotation marks and ci-\\ntations omitted)); In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed.\\nCir. 2009) (“[O]ur cases have held that once accessibility is\\nshown, it is unnecessary to show that anyone actually in-\\nspected the reference.”); Constant v. Advanced Micro-De-\\nvices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“If\\naccessibility is proved, there is no requirement to show that\\nparticular members of the public actually received the in-\\nformation.”). Thus, a petitioner need not establish that\\nspecific persons actually accessed or received a work to\\nshow that the work was publicly accessible.\\n The Board departed from this well-established princi-\\nple by repeatedly faulting Samsung for not proving that the\\nWD4 reference was “generally” or “widely” disseminated.\\n\\fSAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD. 19\\n\\n\\n\\nFinal Written Decision, 2018 WL 1940480 at *9. In fact,\\na limited distribution can make a work publicly accessible\\nunder certain circumstances. See, e.g., GoPro, 908 F.3d at\\n694. But the Board’s analysis stopped short of considering\\nwhether those circumstances were present here. The\\nBoard also faulted Samsung for failing to show that the\\nemail recipients “represented a significant portion of those\\ninterested and skilled in the art.” Final Written Decision,\\n2018 WL 1940480 at *9. That was not Samsung’s burden.\\nSee, e.g., Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. AB Fortia, 774 F.2d 1104\\n(Fed. Cir. 1985) (distribution to six conference attendees\\nmade work publicly accessible). The Board’s decision to re-\\nject Samsung’s evidence because it did not establish that\\nenough interested and ordinarily skilled artisans actually\\nobtained the WD4 reference was therefore erroneous.\\n Infobridge offers no substantive response on this point.\\nInfobridge actually agrees that the relevant question here\\nis “the extent that [the WD4 reference] could b[e] located\\nby an interested person exercising reasonable diligence.”\\nAppellee’s Br. 28 (emphasis added). Infobridge simply ar-\\ngues that the Board applied this test here. We are not per-\\nsuaded. As noted above, the only rationales offered by the\\nBoard on this issue were legally erroneous. 4 In re NuVa-\\nsive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The PTAB’s\\nown explanation must suffice for us to see that the agency\\nhas done its job . . . .”).\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 The Board’s rationales and conclusions with re-\\nspect to the JCT-VC and MPEG websites do not suffer from\\nthis same defect. See, e.g., Final Written Decision, 2018 WL\\n1940480 at *7 (“Although the JCT-VC site was organized\\nin a hierarchical manner, the evidence does not establish\\n[that the] WD4 [reference] was indexed in a manner that\\none ordinarily skilled in the art, exercising reasonable dil-\\nigence, could locate it.” (emphasis added)).\\n\\f20 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Rather than requiring Samsung to prove that persons\\nof ordinary skill actually received the listserv email, the\\nBoard should have considered whether Samsung’s evi-\\ndence established that an ordinarily skilled artisan could\\nhave accessed the WD4 reference, after exercising reason-\\nable diligence, based on the listserv email. This might in-\\nclude examining whether a person of ordinary skill,\\nexercising reasonable diligence, would have joined the\\nlistserv. See, e.g., GoPro, 908 F.3d at 694. It also might\\ninclude considering the circumstances of the email itself,\\nfor example why the email was sent and whether it was\\ncovered by an expectation of confidentiality. See, e.g.,\\nMass. Inst. of Tech., 774 F.2d at 1109. Because the record\\nis not clear on these factual questions, we decline to resolve\\nthem in the first instance on appeal. See, e.g., Medtronic,\\n891 F.3d at 1381–83 (remanding for the Board to consider\\nthe public accessibility question). In particular, we are re-\\nluctant to assume that an email among potential collabo-\\nrators should be treated the same as a public disclosure\\nwithout clear findings by the Board. Accordingly, we va-\\ncate the Board’s finding that Mr. Bross’s email did not\\nmake the WD4 reference publicly accessible and remand so\\nthat the Board can consider this issue after applying the\\ncorrect legal standard.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments\\nand find them unpersuasive. Ultimately, the Board ap-\\nplied an erroneous legal standard in concluding that the\\nlistserv email did not make the WD4 reference publicly ac-\\ncessible. We therefore vacate the Board’s findings on this\\npoint and remand for further proceedings consistent with\\nthis opinion.\\n VACATED AND REMANDED\\n COSTS\\n No costs.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3495,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4639129,"string":"4,639,129"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"INDIVIOR INC., Fka Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., Indivior UK Limited, Fka RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Fka MonoSol Rx, LLC, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc., Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Defendants-Appellants Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Intelgenx Technologies Corp., Defendants Indivior Inc., Fka Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., Indivior UK Limited, Fka RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Alvogen Pine Brook, LLC, Defendant-Cross-Appellant"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Indivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, S.A."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"2017-2587, 2018-1010, 2018-1058, 2018-1062, 2018-1114, 2018-1115, 2018-1176, 2018-1177; 2018-1949, 2018-2045"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Newman, Mayer, Lourie\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888918/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"040dissent\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888919/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"LOURIE, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n INDIVIOR INC., FKA RECKITT BENCKISER\\n PHARMACEUTICALS INC., INDIVIOR UK\\nLIMITED, FKA RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,\\n AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC., FKA\\n MONOSOL RX, LLC,\\n Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\nDR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A., DR. REDDY'S\\nLABORATORIES INC., WATSON LABORATORIES\\n INC., ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC., TEVA\\n PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,\\n Defendants-Appellants\\n\\n PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., INTELGENX\\n TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,\\n Defendants\\n ______________________\\n\\n2017-2587, 2018-1010, 2018-1058, 2018-1062, 2018-1114,\\n 2018-1115, 2018-1176, 2018-1177\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Delaware in Nos. 1:13-cv-01674-RGA, 1:14-cv-\\n00422-RGA, 1:14-cv-01451-RGA, 1:14-cv-01574-RGA, 1:16-\\ncv-00178-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.\\n\\n -------------------------------------------------------------\\n\\n2 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n INDIVIOR INC., FKA RECKITT BENCKISER\\n PHARMACEUTICALS INC., INDIVIOR UK\\nLIMITED, FKA RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,\\n AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n ALVOGEN PINE BROOK, LLC,\\n Defendant-Cross-Appellant\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1949, 2018-2045\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Delaware in Nos. 1:15-cv-00477-RGA, 1:15-cv-\\n01016-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 12, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n JEFFREY B. ELIKAN, Covington & Burling LLP, Wash-\\nington, DC, argued for all plaintiffs-cross-appellants in\\n2017-2587 and for all plaintiffs-appellants in 2018-1949.\\nIndivior Inc., Indivior UK Limited also represented by\\nERICA NICOLE ANDERSEN, BETH S. BRINKMANN, ROBERT\\nJASON FOWLER, MATTHEW AARON KUDZIN, JEFFREY\\nHOWARD LERNER, ASHLEY KWON; DUSTIN B. WEEKS, Trout-\\nman Sanders LLP, Atlanta, GA; DANIEL LADOW, JAMES M.\\nBOLLINGER, MAGNUS ESSUNGER, KATHERINE HARIHAR,\\nTIMOTHY P. HEATON, GERALD EAMES PORTER, New York,\\nNY; CHARANJIT BRAHMA, San Francisco, CA.\\n\\n JAMES FRANCIS HIBEY, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Wash-\\nington, DC, for plaintiff-cross-appellant Aquestive\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 3\\n\\n\\n\\nTherapeutics, Inc. in 2017-2587 and for plaintiff-appellant\\nAquestive Therapeutics, Inc. in 2018-1949. Also repre-\\nsented by JAMIE LUCIA, San Francisco, CA.\\n\\n KEVIN PAUL MARTIN, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston,\\nMA, argued for defendants-appellants Dr. Reddy's Labora-\\ntories, S.A., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc. in 2017-2587.\\nAlso represented by ELAINE BLAIS, EDWINA CLARKE,\\nROBERT FREDERICKSON, III, ALEXANDRA LU; ROBERT V.\\nCERWINSKI, IRA J. LEVY, New York, NY.\\n\\n STEPHEN R. SMEREK, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los An-\\ngeles, CA, argued for defendants-appellants Watson Labor-\\natories Inc., Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Teva\\nPharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in 2017-2587. Also represented\\nby JASON CRAIG HAMILTON; GEORGE C. LOMBARDI, MICHAEL\\nKEENAN NUTTER, Chicago, IL; GEOFFREY P. EATON, Wash-\\nington, DC.\\n\\n STEVEN H. SKLAR, Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd., Chicago,\\nIL, argued for defendant-cross-appellant in 2018-1949.\\nAlso represented by DAVID AIRAN, GREGORY BAYS, NICOLE\\nKOPINSKI, JAMES SANNER.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.\\n Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge LOURIE.\\n Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge MAYER.\\nLOURIE, Circuit Judge.\\n Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Labor-\\natories Inc. (collectively, “DRL”); Watson Laboratories Inc.\\nand Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (collectively, “Watson”);\\nand Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) appeal from\\nseveral decisions of the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Delaware pertaining to U.S. Patents 8,603,514\\n(the “’514 patent”), 8,900,497 (the “’497 patent”), and\\n\\n4 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n8,017,150 (the “’150 patent”). Specifically, DRL appeals\\nfrom two decisions holding the asserted claims of the ’514,\\n’497, and ’150 patents not invalid as obvious. Reckitt\\nBenckiser Pharm. Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A., Nos. 14-\\n1451-RGA, 14-1573-RGA, 14-1574-RGA, 2017 WL 3837312\\n(D. Del. Aug. 31, 2017) (“DRL ’514 Decision”); Reckitt\\nBenckiser Pharm. Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A., No. 14-\\n1451-RGA, 2017 WL 3782782 (D. Del. Aug. 31, 2017) (“DRL\\n’150 Decision”). Watson and Teva appeal from the court’s\\njudgment in a third decision that the ’514 patent is not in-\\nvalid as indefinite. Reckitt Benckiser Pharm. Inc. v. Wat-\\nson Labs., Inc., Nos. 13-1674-RGA, 14-422-RGA, 2016 WL\\n3186659 (D. Del. June 3, 2016) (“Watson Decision”); J.A.\\n212–14. 1 Watson also appeals from the court’s finding in\\nthat decision that Watson infringes the ’514 patent, as well\\nas the court’s subsequent order denying it relief from the\\ninfringement judgment under Rule 59. Reckitt Benckiser\\nPharm. Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc., Nos. 13-1674-RGA, 14-\\n422-RGA, 2017 WL 3820943 (D. Del. Aug. 31, 2017) (“Rule\\n59 Decision”).\\n Indivior Inc., Indivior UK Limited, and Aquestive\\nTherapeutics, Inc. (collectively, “Indivior”) cross-appeal\\nfrom the district court’s findings in the two DRL decisions\\nthat DRL does not infringe either the ’514 or the ’150 pa-\\ntent. Indivior also appeals from a fourth decision by the\\nsame court finding that Alvogen Pine Brook, LLC (“Al-\\nvogen”) does not infringe the ’514 patent. Indivior Inc. v.\\nMylan Techs. Inc., 298 F. Supp. 3d 775 (D. Del. 2018) (“Al-\\nvogen Decision”). Finally, Indivior requests that the court’s\\njudgment in the Watson case of invalidity of claims 15–19\\nof U.S. Patent 8,475,832 (the “’832 patent”) be vacated as\\nmoot.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Unless otherwise noted, all J.A. citations are to the\\njoint appendix filed in the DRL appeal.\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 5\\n\\n\\n\\n We vacate as moot the district court’s decision holding\\nclaims 15–19 of the ’832 patent invalid as obvious. We af-\\nfirm the court on all other issues.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Indivior markets and holds the New Drug Application\\n(“NDA”) for Suboxone® sublingual film (“Suboxone Film”),\\nan opioid addiction treatment that combines two active in-\\ngredients: the opioid buprenorphine and the opioid antag-\\nonist naloxone. Suboxone Film is applied below a patient’s\\ntongue, where it then rapidly dissolves to release the active\\ningredients. In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration\\n(“FDA”) approved Indivior’s film product, the first such\\nproduct to gain FDA approval. Previously, Indivior sold\\nbuprenorphine/naloxone only in a tablet form.\\n These appeals involve issues of infringement and inva-\\nlidity of four patents covering pharmaceutical films and\\nmethods of making them. However, the parties’ substan-\\ntive disputes focus on only two patents, the ’514 and ’150\\npatents. Both patents claim pharmaceutical films and are\\nlisted in the Orange Book 2 as covering Suboxone Film.\\nRepresentative claims of the two patents are set forth in\\nthe Appendix. The ’497 patent is directed to film manufac-\\nturing methods, and the parties do not distinguish it from\\nthe ’514 patent with respect to the issues on appeal.\\nAquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (“Aquestive”) owns these\\nthree patents and exclusively licenses them to Indivior. 3\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 This publication is formally entitled “Approved\\nDrug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evalua-\\ntions.”\\n 3 Indivior was formerly known as Reckitt Benckiser\\nPharmaceuticals Inc. Aquestive was formerly known as\\nMonoSol Rx, LLC. For simplicity, we refer to the former\\nentities by their present names.\\n\\n6 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe fourth patent, the ’832 patent, claims film formula-\\ntions and is owned by Indivior.\\n A. The Patents in Suit\\n 1. The ’514 and ’497 Patents\\n The ’514 patent claims pharmaceutical films with a\\nuniform distribution of active ingredient. As described in\\nthe specification, drug content uniformity is required by\\nregulatory authorities yet difficult to achieve in practice be-\\ncause of problems in manufacturing the films. ’514 patent\\ncol. 2 ll. 18–21, 42–46, 57–59. Generally, a film may be\\nmade by mixing an active compound with a solvent to form\\na flowable matrix, casting the mixture onto a planar sur-\\nface, and then drying the film to produce a solid sheet. Id.\\ncol. 5 ll. 41–54, col. 6 ll. 49–60.\\n Multiple factors in the film-making process can affect\\nuniformity. “By avoiding the introduction of and eliminat-\\ning excessive air in the mixing process, selecting polymers\\nand solvents to provide a controllable viscosity and by dry-\\ning the film in a rapid manner from the bottom up, such\\n[uniform] films result.” Id. col. 23 ll. 16–20. Claim 62, the\\nsole independent claim at issue from the ’514 patent, is rep-\\nresentative and recites “a cast film comprising a flowable\\nwater-soluble or water swellable film-forming matrix,”\\n“wherein the uniformity subsequent to casting and drying\\nof the matrix is measured by . . . unit doses which do not\\nvary by more than 10%” of the amount of active. Id. col. 73\\nll. 49–50, col. 74 ll. 6–9 (emphases added). The claim iden-\\ntifies two parameters—viscosity and drying—that contrib-\\nute to film uniformity: (1) the viscosity of the matrix must\\nbe “sufficient to aid in substantially maintaining non-self-\\naggregating uniformity” of the active (the “viscosity limita-\\ntion”); and (2) the matrix must be “capable of being dried\\nwithout loss of substantial uniformity of the active” (the\\n“drying limitation”). Id. col. 73 l. 53–col. 74 l. 5. The other\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 7\\n\\n\\n\\nasserted claims of the ’514 patent all depend from claim\\n62. 4\\n The drying limitation is central to several of the issues\\non appeal. The specification teaches that using conven-\\ntional drying methods, which apply hot air to the top of the\\nfilm, produces nonuniform films. E.g., id. col. 8 ll. 56–64,\\ncol. 22 ll. 41–60. As hot air strikes the surface of the film,\\nwater at the surface evaporates, forming a polymer skin\\nthat seals the aqueous composition below. Id. col. 3 ll. 37–\\n42. But as heating continues, the vapor pressure of the un-\\nderlying aqueous composition builds, causing the film sur-\\nface to stretch and ultimately break to allow the vapor to\\nescape. Id. col. 3 ll. 45–49. The polymer skin then reforms,\\nand the cycle of surface destruction and reformation con-\\ntinues until drying is complete. Id. col. 3 ll. 49–52. Unde-\\nsirably, this cycle produces a dried film that is uneven and\\nnonuniform, which the patent refers to as the “ripple ef-\\nfect.” Id. col. 3 ll. 51–54.\\n To produce a uniform film, the specification discloses\\ncontrolled drying processes that differ from conventional\\ntechniques. In a section titled “Drying Wet Cast Films,” id.\\ncol. 28 l. 51, the specification states that “[t]he wet film may\\nbe dried using controlled bottom drying or controlled micro-\\nwave drying, desirably in the absence of external air cur-\\nrents or heat on the top (exposed) surface of the film,” id.\\ncol. 28 ll. 52–55 (emphasis added). Such methods allow for\\nvapor release without the disadvantages described above.\\nId. col. 28 ll. 55–57. In contrast, “[c]onventional convection\\nair drying from the top is not employed” because it produces\\n\\n\\n 4 Indivior asserted claims 62–65, 69, 71, and 73\\nagainst DRL, DRL ’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *2;\\nclaims 62, 64, 65, 69, and 73 against Watson, Watson Deci-\\nsion, 2016 WL 3186659, at *2; and claims 62, 63, 65, 69, 71,\\nand 73 against Alvogen, Alvogen Decision, 298 F. Supp. 3d\\nat 776.\\n\\n8 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nthe ripple effect. Id. col. 28 ll. 57–64 (emphasis added). If\\nsome top air is used, “it is balanced with the bottom air\\ndrying to avoid non-uniformity.” Id. col. 29 ll. 1–3.\\n In addition to controlling the location of the source of\\nair, the specification teaches a “zone drying procedure” in\\nwhich the film is dried along a belt with different drying\\nzones that may vary in temperature, humidity, or other at-\\nmospheric conditions. Id. col. 32 ll. 38–67. The specifica-\\ntion does not specify whether the air comes from the top or\\nbottom during zone drying but does indicate that zone dry-\\ning “dries the film without surface skinning.” Id. col. 32 ll.\\n49–50. Zone drying may be supplemented with additional\\nprocesses such as lamination “so long as controlled drying\\nis maintained in accordance with the invention.” Id. col. 33\\nll. 1–4.\\n Claim 62 also recites that the flowable matrix has a\\nviscosity “sufficient to aid” in maintaining film uniformity.\\nId. col. 73 ll. 53–55. The specification provides suitable\\nranges of matrix viscosity, which are “generally” 400–\\n100,000 centipoise, “preferably” 800–60,000 centipoise, and\\n“most preferably” 1,000–40,000 centipoise. Id. col. 11 ll.\\n26–29. The choice of polymer has an important role in af-\\nfecting viscosity and hence film uniformity. See id. col. 11\\nll. 15–24.\\n Similar to the ’514 patent, the ’497 patent claims pro-\\ncesses for making pharmaceutical films. Claim 24, the sole\\nasserted claim, depends from claim 1, which recites a dry-\\ning limitation similar to claim 62 of the ’514 patent: a “dry-\\ning” step to form a film “having a substantially uniform\\ndistribution” of an active compound. ’497 patent col. 57 ll.\\n8–10. The specification of the ’497 patent is also substan-\\ntively similar to that of the ’514 patent.\\n 2. ’150 Patent\\n Like the ’514 patent, the ’150 patent is directed to uni-\\nform pharmaceutical films, but it claims them somewhat\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 9\\n\\n\\n\\ndifferently. Rather than identifying process parameters\\nrelevant to film uniformity, as in the ’514 patent, the as-\\nserted claims of the ’150 patent claim pharmaceutical films\\nby their components. Claim 1 is representative of the as-\\nserted claims and recites a film comprising an active ingre-\\ndient and a water-soluble polymer component containing\\ncertain proportions of polyethylene oxide (“PEO”), includ-\\ning both low molecular weight PEO (“L-PEO”) and high\\nmolecular weight PEO (“H-PEO”), and a hydrophilic cellu-\\nlosic polymer. ’150 patent col. 57 ll. 35–54. The specifica-\\ntion lists various “useful water[-]soluble polymers,”\\nincluding PEO, hydrophilic cellulosic polymers, and a sep-\\narate compound, polyvinyl pyrrolidone. Id. col. 15 ll. 47–\\n52. The other asserted claims—4, 5, 8, and 9—each depend\\nfrom claim 1. DRL ’150 Decision, 2017 WL 3782782, at *1.\\n The ’150 patent claims priority from an earlier provi-\\nsional application, U.S. Patent Application 60/473,902 (the\\n“’902 application”).\\n B. The Decisions on Appeal\\n Several generic drug companies filed Abbreviated New\\nDrug Applications (“ANDAs”) to market generic versions of\\nSuboxone Film prior to the expiration of the patents in suit.\\nIndivior then brought several actions for patent infringe-\\nment, accusing DRL of infringing the ’514 and ’150 patents,\\nand both DRL and Watson of infringing the ’497 patent;\\nWatson of infringing the ’514 and ’832 patents; and Al-\\nvogen of infringing the ’514 and ’497 patents. 5\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 DRL’s ANDA was originally owned by Teva, which\\ntransferred its interest to DRL but maintained an interest\\nin a related product. Teva agreed to be bound by the court’s\\ndecision in the DRL ’514 patent case for the related prod-\\nuct. J.A. 30001–06; see J.A. 210–14 (district court’s final\\njudgments).\\n\\n10 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n The district court held four bench trials and decided\\nmultiple issues of infringement and validity concerning the\\nasserted patents. We discuss only the issues pertinent to\\nthese appeals.\\n 1. Watson ’514 Decision\\n The first trial over the ’514 patent involved Indivior’s\\nclaim that Watson infringed the ’514 patent. Watson did\\nnot request construction of the drying limitation. The court\\nfound that Watson infringed the ’514 patent and that Wat-\\nson did not meet its burden to prove the asserted claims\\ninvalid as indefinite. Watson Decision, 2016 WL 3186659,\\nat *16, *21.\\n Indivior also asserted the ’832 patent against Watson.\\nThe district court concluded that claims 15–19 of the ’832\\npatent are invalid as obvious. Id. at *11. In a parallel inter\\npartes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal\\nBoard held claims 15–19 unpatentable as anticipated and\\nobvious. BioDelivery Scis. Int’l, Inc. v. RB Pharm. Ltd., No.\\nIPR2014-00325, 2015 WL 4045328, at *16 (P.T.A.B. June\\n30, 2015), aff’d, 667 F. App’x 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016).\\n After trial, Watson modified its film manufacturing\\nprocess and requested relief under Rule 59 from the district\\ncourt’s infringement judgment. The court denied relief,\\nfinding no manifest injustice in upholding its final judg-\\nment. Rule 59 Decision, 2017 WL 3820943, at *3.\\n 2. DRL ’514 Decision and the Related Appeal\\n In a second trial over the ’514 patent, the district court\\nconsidered Indivior’s claims that DRL infringed the ’514\\npatent and that DRL and Watson infringed the ’497 patent.\\nUnlike in the previous case, the parties (including Watson)\\ndisputed the meaning of the drying limitation. The court\\nconstrued the drying limitation of the ’514 patent to mean\\n“dried without solely employing conventional convection\\nair drying from the top,” because it concluded that the spec-\\nification disclaimed such conventional top drying\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 11\\n\\n\\n\\ntechniques. DRL ’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *4;\\nsee Reckitt Benckiser Pharm. Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA,\\nInc., Nos. 14-1451-RGA, 14-1573-RGA, 14-1574-RGA, 2016\\nWL 3621632, at *10–11 (D. Del. June 29, 2016) (“Claim\\nConstruction Order”). The court found that DRL’s drying\\nprocess uses dryers where the sole source of heat comes\\nfrom the top and thus does not infringe the asserted claims\\nof the ’514 patent. DRL ’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312,\\nat *5–6. For similar reasons, the court found that neither\\nDRL nor Watson infringed the asserted claim of the ’497\\npatent. DRL ’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *5–6, *9.\\n The court also held that DRL failed to prove by clear\\nand convincing evidence that the asserted claims of either\\nthe ’514 or the ’497 patent would have been obvious over\\nthe cited prior art. Id. at *20.\\n After the district court’s judgment of noninfringement,\\nIndivior amended claims of a pending continuation appli-\\ncation that ultimately issued as U.S. Patent 9,931,305 (the\\n“’305 patent”). The amendment removed the words “dried”\\nand “drying” from the language of claim 62, instead recit-\\ning that the film be “capable of being continuously cast . . .\\nwithout loss of substantial uniformity” and that “uni-\\nformity of the-continuously cast film is measured by\\n. . . unit doses cut from the continuously cast film which do\\nnot vary by more than 10%” of the amount of the active.\\n’305 patent col. 73 ll. 21–29 (emphases added). The ’305\\npatent shares a specification with, and is terminally dis-\\nclaimed to, the ’514 patent.\\n Soon after the ’305 patent issued, Indivior again sued\\nDRL for patent infringement, this time asserting the ’305\\npatent in the District of New Jersey. DRL had since\\nlaunched its competing generic product, and Indivior\\nmoved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary\\ninjunction at the New Jersey court. DRL argued that In-\\ndivior’s New Jersey action was barred as claim precluded\\nby the Delaware court’s judgment. The New Jersey court\\n\\n12 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nconcluded that claim preclusion likely would not apply and\\nthat Indivior would likely be able to prove infringement.\\nIndivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A., No. 17-CV-7111,\\n2018 WL 3496643, at *8, *11 (D.N.J. July 20, 2018). Con-\\nsequently, the court entered a temporary restraining order\\nand then a preliminary injunction against DRL’s generic\\nproduct. Id. at *14.\\n DRL appealed to this court. Despite the claim amend-\\nments, the panel majority held that the cast films claimed\\nin the ’305 patent still had to be dried and were subject to\\nthe same specification disclaimer as the ’514 patent. In-\\ndivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., S.A., 752 F. App’x 1024,\\n1031–32 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Indivior”). Under the proper\\nconstruction, we concluded that the asserted claims of the\\n’305 patent were materially identical to those of the ’514\\npatent already adjudicated. Id. at 1034–35. Accordingly,\\nwe held that Indivior’s New Jersey action was likely claim\\nprecluded, vacated the court’s preliminary injunction, and\\nremanded for further proceedings. Id. at 1035.\\n 3. Alvogen ’514 Decision\\n In the third trial over the ’514 patent, the district court\\nconsidered Indivior’s claim that Alvogen infringed the ’514\\npatent. The court construed the drying limitation as it did\\nin the DRL ’514 Decision. Alvogen Decision, 298 F. Supp.\\n3d at 779. And as in the DRL case, the court found that\\nAlvogen’s film manufacturing process dries the films pri-\\nmarily from the top and thus does not meet the drying lim-\\nitation and does not infringe the asserted claims. Id. at\\n784–85.\\n 4. DRL ’150 Decision\\n In addition to the ’514 patent, Indivior asserted that\\nDRL infringed the ’150 patent under the doctrine of equiv-\\nalents. The district court held a separate trial on the ’150\\npatent and found that DRL does not infringe any of the as-\\nserted claims. DRL ’150 Decision, 2017 WL 3782782, at\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 13\\n\\n\\n\\n*4–5. The court also held that DRL did not prove that the\\nasserted claims of the ’150 patent would have been obvious.\\nId. at *7–8.\\n C. The Appeals\\n DRL appeals from the district court’s judgments that\\nthe asserted claims of the ’514, ’497, and ’150 patents are\\nnot invalid as obvious. Watson and Teva appeal from the\\ncourt’s judgments that the ’514 patent is not invalid as in-\\ndefinite, that Watson infringes the ’514 patent, and that\\nWatson is not entitled to Rule 59 relief from the infringe-\\nment judgment.\\n Indivior cross-appeals from the district court’s determi-\\nnations that DRL does not infringe either the ’514 or the\\n’150 patent and that Alvogen does not infringe the ’514 pa-\\ntent. Indivior also requests vacatur of the court’s judgment\\nthat certain claims of the ’832 patent would have been ob-\\nvious over the cited prior art.\\n We have jurisdiction over each appeal under 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1295(a)(1). We first address the parties’ disputes con-\\ncerning the ’514 patent and then turn to the ’150 and ’832\\npatents.\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n On appeal from a bench trial, we review a district\\ncourt’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact\\nfor clear error. Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc.,\\n749 F.3d 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A factual finding is\\nclearly erroneous if, despite some supporting evidence, we\\nare left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake\\nhas been made. United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S.\\n364, 395 (1948). “The burden of overcoming the district\\ncourt’s factual findings is, as it should be, a heavy one.” Po-\\nlaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 789 F.2d 1556, 1559\\n(Fed. Cir. 1986).\\n\\n14 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n A. Infringement of the ’514 Patent\\n Indivior challenges the district court’s judgments that\\nDRL and Alvogen do not infringe the ’514 patent. Watson\\nappeals from the court’s separate judgment that it does in-\\nfringe the ’514 patent. We first consider Indivior’s cross-\\nappeal and appeal and then turn to Watson’s appeal.\\n An infringement analysis has two steps. Clare v.\\nChrysler Grp. LLC, 819 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016).\\nFirst, the court construes the asserted claims. Claim con-\\nstruction is a question of law that may involve underlying\\nfactual questions. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,\\n135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). But when, as here, the court’s\\nconstruction of the relevant limitation is based solely on\\nthe intrinsic evidence, we review its construction de novo.\\nHTC Corp. v. Cellular Commc’ns Equip., LLC, 877 F.3d\\n1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Second, the court determines\\nwhether the accused product meets each limitation of the\\nclaim as construed, which is a question of fact that we re-\\nview for clear error. Wright Med. Tech., Inc. v. Osteonics\\nCorp., 122 F.3d 1440, 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1997).\\n 1. Indivior’s Appeal and Cross-Appeal\\n Indivior’s challenges to the district court’s judgments\\nof noninfringement largely turn on the proper construction\\nof the drying limitation. In the DRL and Alvogen cases,\\nthe district court construed the drying limitation to mean\\n“dried without solely employing conventional convection\\nair drying from the top.” Alvogen Decision, 298 F. Supp. 3d\\nat 779; DRL ’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *4; Claim\\nConstruction Order, 2016 WL 3621632, at *11. That con-\\nstruction rested on the court’s conclusion that the patentee\\ndisclaimed drying wet cast films using solely conventional\\nconvection air drying from the top. The court’s disclaimer\\nconclusion was based on the ’514 patent specification’s ex-\\npress statements of what the invention is, its repeated dis-\\nparagement of conventional top drying methods, and the\\npatent applicant’s characterization of the invention during\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 15\\n\\n\\n\\nprosecution. Claim Construction Order, 2016 WL 3621632,\\nat *6, *11.\\n In Indivior, we likewise concluded that the same spec-\\nification in the related ’305 patent disclaimed conventional\\ntop air drying. 752 F. App’x at 1031–32. In addressing\\nwhether Indivior’s assertion of the ’305 patent raised the\\nsame cause of action as the ’514 patent, we concluded:\\n [T]he specification limits the scope of the “continu-\\n ously cast” limitation in the ’305 claims as it lim-\\n ited the scope of the “drying” limitation in the ’514\\n claims. Specifically, films formed with conven-\\n tional top air drying methods are excluded from the\\n scope of both claim terms.\\nId. at 1034–35 (emphasis added). We explained that\\n“[w]hile the language of the claim terms changed, the scope\\nof the claims did not materially change.” Id. at 1035 (em-\\nphasis added). Even where different patents are asserted\\nbetween two suits, claim preclusion bars a patentee from\\nbringing successive suits accusing the defendant’s same\\nproduct of infringing essentially the same patent claims.\\nSimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC, 884 F.3d 1160, 1167 (Fed.\\nCir. 2018); see Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 525 F.3d\\n1319, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Because—and only because—\\nthe asserted claims of the ’305 patent were materially the\\nsame as those that were or could have been asserted in the\\n’514 patent, we held that Indivior’s action on the ’305 pa-\\ntent was likely claim precluded and that the district court\\nabused its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction.\\nIndivior, 752 F. App’x at 1035.\\n In both the DRL and Alvogen appeals, Indivior argues\\nthat the district court erred in concluding that the ’514 pa-\\ntent specification disclaimed drying methods that use\\nsolely conventional convection air drying from the top. In-\\nstead, Indivior contends that the drying limitation should\\nbe given its plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent that\\nthe specification did disclaim certain top drying methods,\\n\\n16 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nIndivior alternatively argues that the disclaimer cannot\\nencompass zone drying.\\n Both DRL and Alvogen respond that the district court\\nproperly construed the drying limitation, as this court con-\\nfirmed in Indivior.\\n We agree with DRL and Alvogen that the district court\\ncorrectly construed the drying limitation and that the ’514\\npatent specification disclaims conventional top air drying.\\nThe specification “is the single best guide to the meaning\\nof a disputed term,” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,\\n1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks\\nomitted), and where it “makes clear that the invention does\\nnot include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to\\nbe outside the reach of the claims of the patent,” SciMed\\nLife Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242\\nF.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see Chi. Bd. Options\\nExch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361, 1372\\n(Fed. Cir. 2012). The asserted claims recite a film that is\\n“capable of being dried without loss of substantial uni-\\nformity,” but, as we already concluded in Indivior, and as\\nwe again explain below, the specification repeatedly makes\\nclear that conventional top air drying does not yield uni-\\nform films. ’514 patent col. 74 ll. 3–5. Such drying is thus\\noutside the reach of the claims.\\n A specification may disclaim an embodiment by repeat-\\nedly disparaging it. See Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,\\n808 F.3d 509, 513–14 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Chi. Bd., 677 F.3d\\nat 1372. Here, the specification repeatedly disparages con-\\nventional top air drying because such drying does not pro-\\nduce uniform films, the central object of the claimed\\ninvention. For example, the specification teaches that “the\\nconventional drying methods themselves are unable to pro-\\nvide uniform films.” ’514 patent col. 3 ll. 14–16. In the\\nsection focused on “Drying Wet Cast Films,” the specifica-\\ntion likewise discloses that “[c]onventional convection air\\ndrying from the top is not employed.” Id. col. 28 ll. 51, 57–\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 17\\n\\n\\n\\n58. And the patent explains why: conventional top air dry-\\ning\\n initiates drying at the top uppermost portion of the\\n film, thereby forming a barrier against fluid flow,\\n such as the evaporative vapors, and thermal flow,\\n such as the thermal energy for drying. Such dried\\n upper portions serve as a barrier to further vapor\\n release as the portions beneath are dried, which re-\\n sults in non-uniform films.\\nId. col. 28 ll. 57–64.\\n This undesirable phenomenon is described elsewhere\\nas the ripple effect. Id. col. 3 ll. 33–54. The ripple effect is\\n“avoided by the present invention” “by applying heat to the\\nbottom surface of the film with substantially no top air\\nflow” or by using controlled microwaves, “again with sub-\\nstantially no top air flow.” Id. col. 22 ll. 48–57, col. 28 ll.\\n52–55 (“The wet film may be dried using controlled bottom\\ndrying or controlled microwave drying, desirably in the ab-\\nsence of external air currents or heat on the top (exposed)\\nsurface of the film . . . .”). “If top air is employed, it is bal-\\nanced with the bottom air drying to avoid non-uniformity\\n. . . .” Id. col. 29 ll. 1–3.\\n The specification also provides examples that demon-\\nstrate the failure of conventional drying methods to achieve\\nuniformity. Examples CH and CG examined whether un-\\ndesirable particle aggregations occurred during conven-\\ntional drying techniques as compared to “the uniform\\ndrying process of the present invention.” Id. col. 52 ll. 27–\\n28. In example CH, films were placed in an oven “on trays\\nlined with furnace filters, which uniformly distribute heat.”\\nId. col. 52 ll. 57–59. The resulting dried films were homog-\\nenous with no particle aggregations. Id. col. 52 ll. 60–62.\\nIn contrast, when films were dried in an oven “by conven-\\ntional top and bottom drying means,” particle aggregations\\noccurred. Id. col. 53 ll. 1–3, 8–10. Similarly, example CG\\nreports that when films were “dried according to\\n\\n18 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nconventional drying techniques, rather than via the uni-\\nform drying process of the present invention,” the resulting\\nfilms had particle aggregations. Id. col. 52 ll. 26–28, 39–\\n40. And again, when films were instead dried “by the pro-\\ncess of the present invention,” on trays lined with furnace\\nfilters, the resulting films were homogenous and lacked\\nparticle aggregations. Id. col. 52 ll. 43–50. Nowhere does\\nthe specification describe making a uniform film with only\\nconventional convection air drying from the top.\\n Indivior emphasizes that the specification describes\\nother factors that affect film uniformity. Indivior Reply Br.\\n5–7. We agree that both the asserted claims and the spec-\\nification identify other factors, such as viscosity, that may\\ncontribute to uniformity. E.g., ’514 patent col. 73 ll. 53–55,\\ncol. 74 ll. 3–5 (claim 62 containing both viscosity and drying\\nlimitations); id. col. 23 ll. 14–20 (specification indicating\\nlikewise). But the unequivocal disparagement of conven-\\ntional top air drying detailed above demonstrates that\\nother factors may not substitute for controlled drying of a\\nwet cast film to achieve uniformity. As Indivior’s expert\\nexplained, uniformity can be lost at any step of the manu-\\nfacturing process, and once lost cannot be recovered. J.A.\\n17209.\\n Indivior nonetheless argues, first in its reply brief, that\\n“polymer selection and the resulting viscosity may be used\\nas an alternative to controlled drying.” Indivior Reply Br.\\n7. This argument is inconsistent with Indivior’s own\\nacknowledgement that uniformity can be lost throughout\\nthe manufacturing process, and that neither the drying nor\\nthe viscosity limitation of the asserted claims renders the\\nother superfluous. Indivior Cross-Appellant Br. 47. Like-\\nwise, the specification indicates that no individual factor\\ncan guarantee uniformity of a wet cast film after drying.\\n’514 patent col. 3 ll. 3–9 (“The long length of drying time\\naids in promoting the aggregation of the active and other\\nadjuvant, notwithstanding the use of viscosity modifiers.”\\n(emphasis added)), col. 23 ll. 14–20 (“The present invention\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 19\\n\\n\\n\\nyields exceptionally uniform film products . . . . By avoid-\\ning . . . excessive air in the mixing process, selecting poly-\\nmers and solvents to provide a controllable viscosity and\\nby drying the film in a rapid manner from the bottom up,\\nsuch films result.” (emphasis added)). The lone statement\\npurportedly to the contrary cited by Indivior, id. col. 4 ll.\\n61–64 (“Alternatively, or in addition to controlling the dry-\\ning the film, the polymer may be selected in order to pro-\\nvide a viscosity that maintains the non-self-aggregating\\nuniform heterogeneity.”), does not change our conclusion in\\nlight of the specification’s unambiguous disparagement of\\nconventional top air drying and its teachings as a whole.\\n Even if the specification did disclaim certain drying\\nmethods, Indivior contends that the disclaimer cannot ex-\\ntend to zone drying. Indivior Cross-Appellant Br. 43. Zone\\ndrying, according to Indivior, is a preferred embodiment\\nthat can achieve uniform films and cannot be excluded\\nfrom the claims.\\n Indivior plainly waived this limited disclaimer argu-\\nment by not raising it in the DRL case until post-trial brief-\\ning. See, e.g., Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild\\nSemiconductor Int’l, Inc., 904 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir.\\n2018). However, it did raise a claim construction argument\\nresembling the one on appeal in a footnote in the Alvogen\\ncase, Alvogen J.A. 91990 n.20, which the district court re-\\njected, Alvogen Decision, 298 F. Supp. 3d at 783.\\n Even if we assume waiver does not apply, the specifi-\\ncation’s discussion of zone drying does not qualify its dis-\\nclaimer of conventional top air drying. Zone drying just\\nrefers to using a drying tunnel with multiple “drying zones”\\nalong the belt that may differ in various atmospheric con-\\nditions. ’514 patent col. 32 ll. 38–45; id. figs. 35–36. Con-\\nsistent with the rest of the specification, the patent\\nnowhere suggests that zone drying achieves uniform films\\nby using solely conventional top air drying. Rather, the pa-\\ntent explains that zone drying may be supplemented with\\n\\n20 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nadditional processes only “so long as controlled drying is\\nmaintained in accordance with the invention.” Id. col. 33\\nll. 1–4. And contrary to Indivior’s argument, the district\\ncourt’s construction does not exclude any zone drying em-\\nbodiments; it just excludes zone drying that uses solely con-\\nventional convection air drying from the top, which is never\\ndisclosed in the patent. We thus conclude that the disclo-\\nsure of zone drying does not qualify the specification’s re-\\npeated disparagement of solely top air drying.\\n Consistent with our previous Indivior decision, we ul-\\ntimately agree with the district court that the ’514 patent\\nspecification unmistakably disclaimed conventional top air\\ndrying as unable to produce the claimed uniform films. 6\\nAccordingly, we affirm the court’s construction of the dry-\\ning limitation and proceed to the second step of the in-\\nfringement analysis, considering DRL’s and Alvogen’s\\ndistinct ANDA processes separately.\\n The district court found that DRL’s ANDA product does\\nnot infringe the asserted claims of the ’514 patent. DRL\\n’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *5–6. Although the\\ncourt found that the drying process is controlled in certain\\nways to assure film uniformity, it determined that the sole\\nsource of heat in its drying process is hot air coming from\\nabove the film and that any bottom drying that occurred\\nwas incidental. Id. at *5. Consequently, the court found\\nthat DRL does not infringe the drying limitation and thus\\ndoes not infringe any of the asserted claims. Id. at *6.\\n Indivior argues that the district court clearly erred in\\nfinding that DRL’s ANDA product does not infringe the as-\\nserted claims of the ’514 patent. Even under the court’s\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Because we conclude that the specification dis-\\nclaims conventional top air drying, we need not decide\\nwhether the prosecution history further supports that dis-\\nclaimer.\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 21\\n\\n\\n\\nconstruction, Indivior contends that DRL’s drying process\\nis tightly controlled to maintain uniformity and uses bal-\\nanced top air and bottom air drying.\\n DRL responds that the district court did not clearly err\\nin finding noninfringement because DRL’s drying process\\nuses solely conventional top air drying.\\n We agree with DRL that the district court did not\\nclearly err in finding that DRL’s drying process does not\\nmeet the drying limitation and thus does not infringe the\\nasserted claims of the ’514 patent. Indivior does not seri-\\nously dispute the essential predicates of the court’s nonin-\\nfringement finding: that the sole source of heat in DRL’s\\ndrying process is hot air from above the film, and that any\\nbottom drying is merely incidental. See id. at *5 (“DRL’s\\nuse of ‘bottom drying’ is essentially that the inside of the\\noven simply gets hot . . . .”). Indivior thus has not shown\\nclear error in the court’s holding that DRL employs conven-\\ntional top air drying, which is insufficient to meet the dry-\\ning limitation as properly construed. Accordingly, we\\naffirm the court’s finding that DRL does not infringe the\\nasserted claims of the ’514 patent.\\n We next address Indivior’s appeal concerning Alvogen’s\\nANDA product. The district court found that Alvogen’s\\nANDA product does not infringe the ’514 patent because it\\ndoes not meet the drying limitation. Alvogen Decision, 298\\nF. Supp. 3d at 785. The court credited Alvogen’s expert’s\\ntestimony that nozzles above the film supply all the hot air\\nto dry the films, id. at 780–81, and found that any bottom\\ndrying in Alvogen’s process is insubstantial, id. at 784.\\n Indivior argues that the district court clearly erred in\\nits noninfringement finding because even some insubstan-\\ntial bottom drying brings Alvogen’s process within the\\nreach of the asserted claims. We disagree. Indivior’s argu-\\nment is largely repetitive of its claim construction argu-\\nments, which we have rejected. The district court found\\nthat even solely conventional top air drying can result in\\n\\n22 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nsome incidental drying from the bottom, but that such in-\\nsubstantial bottom drying does not infringe the asserted\\nclaims as construed in light of the specification’s disclaimer\\nof conventional top air drying. Id. (“Plaintiffs have not\\ndemonstrated ‘substantial’ bottom drying such that Al-\\nvogen’s dryer can be said to employ anything but ‘conven-\\ntional convection air drying from the top.’”); accord DRL\\n’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *5 (finding that inci-\\ndental bottom drying did not infringe asserted claims). We\\nconclude that this finding is not clearly erroneous or prem-\\nised on an improper claim construction, and therefore af-\\nfirm the district court’s judgment that Alvogen does not\\ninfringe the asserted claims of the ’514 patent.\\n 2. Watson’s Appeal\\n We now consider Watson’s infringement appeal. Wat-\\nson makes two arguments in its appeal from the district\\ncourt’s judgment that Watson’s ANDA product infringes\\nthe asserted claims of the ’514 patent. Watson Decision,\\n2016 WL 3186659, at *21. First, Watson argues that the\\ncourt erred in not granting Watson Rule 59 relief after the\\namendment of its ANDA. Second, Watson argues that the\\ncourt erred in finding that its ANDA product meets the vis-\\ncosity limitation of the asserted claims. We address each\\nargument in turn.\\n Unlike DRL and Alvogen, Watson never requested con-\\nstruction of the drying limitation when it litigated the ’514\\npatent against Indivior, although it joined DRL in arguing\\nfor the narrower construction of the similar limitation in\\nthe ’497 patent. After the district court entered judgment\\nof infringement, Watson amended its ANDA process to re-\\nmove bottom heating sources. It then moved under Rule\\n59 to reopen the court’s judgment.\\n The district court denied Rule 59 relief. Rule 59 Deci-\\nsion, 2017 WL 3820943, at *3. The court found no manifest\\ninjustice in holding Watson to its decision not to request\\nconstruction of the drying limitation. Id. at *2. According\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 23\\n\\n\\n\\nto the court, Watson knew of and in fact proposed the nar-\\nrower construction of that limitation alongside DRL in its\\ncase concerning the ’497 patent, yet never requested such\\na construction in Watson’s own ’514 patent case. Id. The\\ncourt observed that the broader construction of the drying\\nlimitation potentially gave Watson a stronger invalidity\\nposition at the expense of noninfringement. Id. Addition-\\nally, the court decided that Watson was a sophisticated lit-\\nigant that “should be bound by the litigation decisions [it]\\nmake[s].” Id.\\n On appeal, Watson argues that the district court\\nabused its discretion in not reopening the judgment under\\nRule 59. Indivior responds that the court acted well within\\nits discretion in denying Watson such relief.\\n We agree with Indivior that the district court did not\\nabuse its discretion. While Rule 59 gives a court authority\\nto alter or amend a judgment, that authority is exercised\\nonly in limited circumstances, such as to prevent a mani-\\nfest injustice. See United States ex rel. Schumann v. Astra-\\nZeneca Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848–49 (3d Cir. 2014).\\nWatson argues that it is manifestly unjust that different\\ngeneric products will be treated differently depending on\\nhow their cases were litigated. But it is neither unusual\\nnor unjust for a party to be bound by its litigation decisions,\\nparticularly here where Watson was fully aware of but did\\nnot request the claim construction it now seeks. The dis-\\ntrict court found that, while there is an interest in con-\\nsistency across judgments, there is also a public interest in\\nfinality and judicial efficiency, Rule 59 Decision, 2017 WL\\n3820943, at *2, and we discern no abuse of discretion in the\\ncourt’s balancing of those factors in this particular case.\\nFurthermore, Watson acknowledges that it can still seek a\\njudgment of noninfringement based on the amended ANDA\\nprocess even if it fails to secure Rule 59 relief. Under these\\ncircumstances, we conclude that the court acted within its\\ndiscretion in declining to reopen its judgment based on a\\n\\n24 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nclaim construction argument that Watson knew of yet\\nfailed to raise.\\n Watson separately argues that the district court clearly\\nerred in finding that Watson’s ANDA product meets the\\nviscosity limitation of the ’514 patent claims. The court\\nfound that the viscosity range of Watson’s product was\\nwithin the preferred range disclosed in the ’514 patent and\\nthus was “sufficient to aid” in preventing aggregation of the\\nactive, as required by the viscosity limitation. Watson De-\\ncision, 2016 WL 3186659, at *20.\\n Watson argues that Indivior failed to show that viscos-\\nity contributes to the uniformity of Watson’s films and that\\nthe district court improperly placed the burden on Watson\\nto prove noninfringement. Further, Watson emphasizes\\nthe breadth of the preferred viscosity range and that no\\nparticular viscosity value can guarantee uniformity.\\n Indivior responds that the district court did not clearly\\nerr in finding that Watson’s ANDA product meets the vis-\\ncosity limitation because the ANDA requires a viscosity\\nsquarely within the most preferred range identified in the\\n’514 patent.\\n We agree with Indivior and conclude that the district\\ncourt did not clearly err in finding infringement. The vis-\\ncosity limitation requires that the viscosity of the matrix\\nbe “sufficient to aid” in maintaining uniformity. ’514 pa-\\ntent col. 73 ll. 53–55. As both parties agree, viscosity is one\\nfactor among several identified in the ’514 patent that con-\\ntributes to uniformity. E.g., id. col. 23 ll. 14–20. Specifi-\\ncally, the patent explains that “[v]iscosity is one property\\nof a liquid that controls the stability of the active” and that\\nthe viscosity of the matrix will “generally” be 400–100,000\\ncentipoise, “preferably” be 800–60,000 centipoise, and\\n“most preferably” be 1,000–40,000 centipoise. Id. col. 11 ll.\\n24–29. Watson’s ANDA specifies a viscosity of 5,800–\\n17,500 centipoise, J.A. 80020, 12578, which is, as the court\\ncorrectly found, plainly encompassed by the most preferred\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 25\\n\\n\\n\\nrange disclosed in the ’514 patent. Further, the court did\\nnot clearly err in finding that a film may satisfy the viscos-\\nity limitation even if other factors than viscosity contribute\\nto film uniformity. Watson Decision, 2016 WL 3186659, at\\n*20. As previously discussed, the asserted claims them-\\nselves identify drying as an additional factor affecting uni-\\nformity. Since Watson demonstrates no clear error in the\\ncourt’s infringement judgment, we affirm its finding that\\nWatson’s ANDA product infringes the ’514 patent.\\n B. Validity of the ’514 Patent\\n Watson, Teva, and DRL raise two challenges to the va-\\nlidity of the ’514 patent. Watson and Teva appeal from the\\ncourt’s judgment that the asserted claims of the ’514 patent\\nare not invalid as indefinite. DRL appeals from the court’s\\njudgment that the claims have not been shown to be invalid\\nas obvious. We consider the challenges separately.\\n 1. Indefiniteness\\n A patent must “conclude with one or more claims par-\\nticularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject\\nmatter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35\\nU.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (2006). 7 Because of the statute’s demand\\nfor particularity in claiming, “a patent is invalid for indefi-\\nniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification de-\\nlineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to\\ninform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art\\nabout the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig\\nInstruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014).\\n We review a district court’s indefiniteness judgment as\\nwe do its claim construction, Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 Because the application of the ’514 patent was filed\\nbefore March 16, 2013, the pre-Leahy-Smith America In-\\nvents Act version of § 112 applies. See Pub. L. No. 112-29,\\n125 Stat. 284 (2011).\\n\\n26 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nInt’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2017), which in\\nthis case is de novo.\\n At the district court, the parties’ indefiniteness dis-\\npute focused on claim 62’s recitation of a “cast film compris-\\ning a flowable water-soluble or water swellable film-\\nforming matrix.” ’514 patent col. 73 ll. 49–50. Watson al-\\nleged that this limitation is indefinite because a cast film\\nin its final dosage form is not flowable, and the claim thus\\nrequired a physical impossibility. While the court agreed\\nthat the final cast film could not be flowable, it reasoned\\nthat a product claim may recite elements “in the state in\\nwhich they exist during manufacture, before the final prod-\\nuct exists.” Watson Decision, 2016 WL 3186659, at *15–16.\\nAnd because the intrinsic evidence made clear that the cast\\nfilm was made from a matrix that was flowable only before\\ndrying, the court concluded that the defendants failed to\\nprove that the claims were indefinite. Id. at *16.\\n On appeal, Watson and Teva argue that the claims re-\\ncite a physical impossibility—a flowable yet solid cast\\nfilm—and are therefore indefinite. Indivior responds that\\nthe claims, understood in light of the specification, clearly\\nrecite a matrix that is flowable only before drying.\\n We agree with Indivior that the claim is not indefinite.\\nThe only sensible reading of the claim is that the cast film\\nis made from a matrix that is flowable before drying and is\\nnot simultaneously dry and flowable. For example, the ma-\\ntrix as claimed has a viscosity, which is a property of fluids,\\nnot solids. And the matrix is “capable of being dried,”\\nwhich would be redundant if the matrix is already dried.\\nThe specification similarly explains that the wet matrix is\\n“formed into a film . . . and then dried.” ’514 patent col. 25\\nll. 27–28. The claims and specification thus make quite\\nclear that the flowable matrix is first flowable and then\\ndried.\\n Having no support in the patent itself, Watson and\\nTeva essentially rest on the argument that a product claim\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 27\\n\\n\\n\\n“comprising” certain elements must contain those elements\\nsimultaneously. But the district court properly rejected\\nthis position based on our precedent. For example, in\\nGemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371,\\n1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the patentee claimed a refrigera-\\ntor shelf “comprising” a lower wall having a certain resili-\\nence. Since the specification made clear that the resilience\\nonly referred to resilience during assembly, we held that\\nthe lower wall only required that property during assem-\\nbly. Id. at 1378–79, 1380–81. The ’514 patent likewise\\nmakes clear that the matrix is flowable only at a certain\\ntime—before drying. The word “comprising” in isolation\\ndoes not sustain Watson and Teva’s nonsensical interpre-\\ntation of a flowable dried film that is contrary to both the\\nspecification and the claim language. We thus affirm the\\ndistrict court’s judgment that the ’514 patent has not been\\nshown to be invalid as indefinite.\\n 2. Obviousness\\n We now consider DRL’s appeal from the district court’s\\njudgment of nonobviousness. Obviousness is a question of\\nlaw based on underlying facts, including the scope and con-\\ntent of the prior art, differences between the prior art and\\nthe claims at issue, the level of ordinary skill, and relevant\\nevidence of secondary considerations. Graham v. John\\nDeere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). A patent\\nis presumed valid, and overcoming that presumption at the\\ndistrict court requires clear and convincing evidence. Mi-\\ncrosoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011); Fer-\\nring B.V. v. Watson Labs., Inc.-Fla., 764 F.3d 1401, 1407\\n(Fed. Cir. 2014).\\n In its analysis of the Graham factors, the district court\\nfound that a person of ordinary skill would principally have\\na background in pharmaceutical science or chemistry but\\n“would also be a member of a team, which would include\\nan engineer or scientist with one to three years of relevant\\nexperience manufacturing and optimizing various types of\\n\\n28 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nfilm products using coating and drying processes.” DRL\\n’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *15. In reaching this\\ndetermination, the court found some merit both in In-\\ndivior’s argument that the pharmaceutical film field was\\nnascent around the time of invention and in DRL’s argu-\\nment that a person of ordinary skill would have some\\nknowledge relating to coating and drying films. Id.\\n Turning to the prior art, the district court generally\\nfound that there was limited use of top air convection dry-\\ners in the context of pharmaceutical films at the time of\\ninvention. Id. at *16. The court also observed that there\\nwere differences between pharmaceutical and non-phar-\\nmaceutical films, citing in particular the more demanding\\nFDA requirements for drug content uniformity in pharma-\\nceuticals. Id.\\n DRL asserted that the claims were obvious over U.S.\\nPatents 4,849,246 (“Schmidt”), 6,552,024 (“Chen”), and\\n5,881,476 (“Strobush”). The district court made findings on\\nthe teachings of the prior art, which we summarize below.\\n Schmidt disclosed processes for making pharmaceuti-\\ncal films. Schmidt’s films were made through a roll-coating\\nprocess with temperature-controlled rollers and a drying\\ntunnel that was controllable in sections. DRL ’514 Deci-\\nsion, 2017 WL 3837312, at *16. Schmidt also disclosed that\\nthere was a regulatory requirement for drug content uni-\\nformity and that its processes yielded films with a repro-\\nducible weight that varied within 10%. Id. at *17.\\nHowever, the district court found that Schmidt did not ex-\\namine the uniformity of the film after drying, crediting In-\\ndivior’s expert’s testimony. Id.\\n Chen taught pharmaceutical films made by a casting\\nprocess and a drying oven that included top air drying noz-\\nzles and that had controllable temperature and air speed.\\nId. Chen further discussed a human pharmacokinetic\\nstudy conducted with its films. Id. at *18.\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 29\\n\\n\\n\\n Strobush disclosed a method for drying photographic\\nand other non-pharmaceutical films without introducing a\\nsurface defect called “mottle.” Id. at *16. As Strobush was\\nnot directed to pharmaceutical films, it did not address\\ndrug content uniformity. Id.\\n The key dispute between the parties was whether the\\nprior art’s teachings would motivate a skilled artisan to\\nmake a uniform pharmaceutical film according to the\\nclaimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.\\nThe district court found that Schmidt did not directly\\nmeasure drug content uniformity and only indirectly meas-\\nured uniformity before drying. Id. at *17. Further, the\\ncourt cited a subsequent peer-reviewed article indicating\\nthat Schmidt’s process did not produce uniform films. Id.\\nThe court thus found that Schmidt did not disclose how to\\nachieve drug content uniformity. Id.\\n Turning to Chen, the district court found that the ref-\\nerence disclosed a human study using its films, which im-\\nplicitly suggested that the films had uniform drug content.\\nId. at *18. However, the court noted that Chen did not dis-\\nclose that its films had the requisite uniformity and that\\nthe defendants’ expert failed to produce uniform films us-\\ning Chen’s protocol. Id. In light of this conflicting evidence,\\nthe court found that DRL failed to prove that Chen\\nachieved drug content uniformity. Id.\\n Given the nascent status of pharmaceutical films at the\\ntime of invention and the limited knowledge of drying tech-\\nniques, the district court additionally found that a person\\nof ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine\\nthe prior art to achieve uniformity. Id. at *18. Moreover,\\nthe court found that a skilled artisan would not have been\\nmotivated to combine Schmidt and Chen with the tech-\\nniques in Strobush because Strobush did not address phar-\\nmaceutical films or film uniformity, but rather the surface\\ndefect called mottle. Id.\\n\\n30 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Finally, the district court found that secondary consid-\\nerations supported nonobviousness. The court considered\\nevidence that obtaining pharmaceutical film content uni-\\nformity was a long-felt need yet difficult to achieve, and the\\ncourt gave some credit to Aquestive’s work related to the\\n’514 patent in solving that need. Id. at *19. That credit\\nwas supported by several pieces of evidence. First, it was\\nundisputed that Aquestive was the first to receive FDA ap-\\nproval for a pharmaceutical film. Id. Second, several pa-\\npers cited the inventors’ work for demonstrating the value\\nand viability of pharmaceutical films. Id. Third, DRL itself\\nprepared an internal memorandum recognizing an\\nAquestive patent application that “yields uniform distribu-\\ntion of active,” “the advantageous factor which was not ap-\\npreciated by the prior arts.” Id. The court considered that\\nthe praise did not specifically address the patents in suit\\nand sometimes credited others as well, but the court none-\\ntheless gave the evidence some weight because it referred\\nto the claimed technology. Id. at *20.\\n Considering all the evidence, the district court held\\nthat DRL failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence\\nthat the asserted claims of the ’514 patent would have been\\nobvious. Id..\\n On appeal, DRL challenges several of the district\\ncourt’s factual findings. First, DRL argues that the court\\nclearly erred in finding the level of ordinary skill. Second,\\nDRL alleges that the court clearly erred in finding that\\nSchmidt and Chen do not teach drug content uniformity.\\nThird, DRL argues that the court clearly erred in dismiss-\\ning the teachings of Strobush. DRL also contends that sec-\\nondary considerations do not compel nonobviousness.\\n Indivior responds that the district court did not clearly\\nerr in its factual findings and that secondary considera-\\ntions support nonobviousness.\\n We agree with Indivior that the district court did not\\nclearly err in its factual findings or in its ultimate\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 31\\n\\n\\n\\njudgment of nonobviousness. First, we see no clear error\\nin the court adopting a compromise measure of the level of\\nordinary skill. Although the court found that the field of\\npharmaceutical films was just emerging at the time of in-\\nvention, it also found “merit to [DRL’s] argument that one\\nof ordinary skill would have a degree of access to some of\\nthe body of prior-art knowledge relating to coating and dry-\\ning.” Id. at *15. Consequently, the court found that a per-\\nson of ordinary skill would be on a team with an engineer\\nor scientist with experience in manufacturing films. Id.\\nDRL argues that the court clearly erred in settling on the\\nparticular amount of experience: 1–3 years according to\\nthe court, while DRL preferred 5–10 years. For its part,\\nIndivior’s expert testified that a skilled artisan would have\\na lower amount of experience with films since the pharma-\\nceutical film field was young and that, in his nearly 40\\nyears of experience, he had never seen a team assembled\\nwith the experience suggested by DRL. On this record, we\\nconclude that DRL’s nitpicking over the experience level of\\nthe skilled artisan fails to demonstrate clear error.\\n Next, we conclude that the district court did not clearly\\nerr in finding that Schmidt did not disclose uniform dried\\nfilms according to the claimed invention. As properly con-\\nstrued, claim 62 requires a specific type of drying, i.e., with-\\nout solely top air drying, to achieve a specific uniformity\\n“subsequent to casting and drying.” Schmidt disclosed nei-\\nther limitation. Indeed, DRL does not dispute that\\nSchmidt only disclosed a uniform wet film. The court thus\\ndid not clearly err in relying on Indivior’s expert’s testi-\\nmony that since film uniformity could be lost at the drying\\nstep, a uniform wet film does not disclose the claimed uni-\\nform dried films.\\n We conclude likewise with respect to Chen. While the\\nhuman study disclosed in Chen implicitly suggested that\\nthe films were uniform, Chen’s actual discussion of uni-\\nformity involved films lacking an active compound, J.A.\\n70211–12, and the defendants’ expert failed to produce\\n\\n32 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nuniform films using Chen’s method, DRL ’514 Decision,\\n2017 WL 3837312, at *17–18. The district court did not\\nclearly err in its weighing of this evidence, some of which\\nsupported DRL’s position and some of which went against\\nit.\\n Having found that neither Schmidt nor Chen taught\\nthe post-drying uniform films as claimed in the ’514 patent,\\nthe district court also found that a skilled artisan would\\nnot have been motivated to modify either reference in light\\nof Strobush with a reasonable expectation of success. Id.\\nat *18–19. DRL argues that this was also clear error. We\\ndisagree. Strobush did not address the uniformity of either\\npharmaceutical films or non-pharmaceutical films, but ra-\\nther a surface defect called mottle. Mottle may relate to\\nuniformity, but they are different properties. The court\\ncredited Indivior’s expert, who testified that lack of mottle\\nwould not imply that the film was uniform, id. at *18, and\\nDRL points to no clear error in that finding. Further, while\\nDRL emphasizes that Strobush taught bottom-drying, it\\ndoes not point us to any recognition in Strobush that bot-\\ntom-drying had any particularly advantageous features.\\nWhile the motivation of the skilled artisan need not be the\\nsame as that of the patentee, KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,\\n550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007), DRL’s proffered motivation is too\\ntenuous. We conclude that the district court did not clearly\\nerr in finding that a skilled artisan would not have been\\nmotivated to make a bottom-dried uniform pharmaceutical\\nfilm based on a teaching that was not emphasized in any\\nmeaningful way from a reference in a different field ad-\\ndressing a different problem.\\n That finding is further supported by the court’s deter-\\nmination that a skilled artisan would not have had a rea-\\nsonable expectation of success. DRL ’514 Decision, 2017\\nWL 3837312, at *19. In contrast to a “finite number of\\nidentified, predictable solutions,” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, the\\ncourt found that multiple factors throughout the manufac-\\nturing process contribute to the uniformity of\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 33\\n\\n\\n\\npharmaceutical films, that adjusting the various factors\\nwould have been unintuitive, and that the field was still\\nemergent at the time of invention. DRL ’514 Decision, 2017\\nWL 3837312, at *19. We also see no clear error in those\\nfindings.\\n We last consider DRL’s challenge to the district court’s\\nevaluation of the evidence of secondary considerations.\\n“[E]vidence of secondary considerations may often be the\\nmost probative and cogent evidence in the record. It may\\noften establish that an invention appearing to have been\\nobvious in light of the prior art was not.” Stratoflex, Inc. v.\\nAeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1983).\\nAquestive was the first to receive FDA approval for a phar-\\nmaceutical film and received praise for its work in achiev-\\ning uniform films, including by DRL itself. Having\\nconsidered DRL’s arguments, we conclude that the court\\ndid not clearly err in giving some weight to Indivior’s evi-\\ndence.\\n Because we conclude that DRL has not shown clear er-\\nror in the court’s findings, we affirm the district court’s\\njudgment that the asserted claims of the ’514 patent, as\\nproperly construed, would not have been obvious. As DRL\\nhas not argued the ’497 patent separately, we affirm the\\ncourt’s nonobviousness judgment with respect to that pa-\\ntent as well.\\n C. Infringement of the ’150 Patent\\n We turn to the parties’ appeals concerning the ’150 pa-\\ntent, beginning with Indivior’s appeal from the district\\ncourt’s judgment that DRL does not infringe the asserted\\nclaims of the ’150 patent. DRL ’150 Decision, 2017 WL\\n3782782, at *1, *5. Claim 1 recites that the film includes a\\nhydrophilic cellulosic polymer (“HCP”). DRL substituted\\npolyvinyl pyrrolidone (“PVP”) for HCP in its ANDA prod-\\nuct. Id. at *3. Indivior argued that DRL’s product in-\\nfringed under the doctrine of equivalents.\\n\\n34 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n The district court held that DRL’s product does not in-\\nfringe under the doctrine of equivalents because the ’150\\npatent disclosed PVP as an alternative to HCP but did not\\nclaim it, thereby dedicating it to the public. Id. at *4–5.\\n Indivior argues that the district court erred in conclud-\\ning that the disclosure-dedication rule applied. DRL disa-\\ngrees and contends that the district court’s analysis and\\njudgment were correct.\\n We agree with DRL that the disclosure-dedication rule\\napplies here and that the district court correctly found that\\nDRL’s product does not infringe under the doctrine of\\nequivalents. When a patentee discloses subject matter but\\ndoes not claim it, the patentee dedicates the unclaimed\\nsubject matter to the public and cannot recapture it\\nthrough the doctrine of equivalents. Johnson & Johnston\\nAssocs. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1054 (Fed. Cir.\\n2002) (en banc). The rule descends from the essential no-\\ntice function of claims. As the Supreme Court long ago ex-\\nplained, “[t]he public is notified and informed, by the most\\nsolemn act on the part of the patentee, that his claim to\\ninvention is for such and such an element or combination,\\nand for nothing more.” Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U.S. 354,\\n361 (1884).\\n Here, the patentee claimed a film comprising a polymer\\ncomponent made up of PEO and HCP but disclosed “useful\\nwater[-]soluble polymers,” including both HCP and other\\npolymers such as PVP. ’150 patent col. 15 ll. 44–60. The\\nspecification further describes examples of successful films\\nusing polymeric blends of PEO and PVP without HCP. Id.\\ncol. 51 l. 49–col. 52 l. 36 (example EA); see also id. col. 54 l.\\n51–col. 55 l. 11 (examples EI, EJ). These disclosures teach\\nthat PVP, an unclaimed embodiment, is an alternative to\\nHCP and thus is dedicated to the public and cannot be re-\\ncaptured through the doctrine of equivalents. See Johnson\\n& Johnston, 285 F.3d at 1054. We affirm the district\\ncourt’s judgment that DRL’s ANDA product, which\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 35\\n\\n\\n\\ncontains PVP but not HCP, does not infringe the asserted\\nclaims of the ’150 patent.\\n D. Validity of ’150 Patent\\n DRL alleges that the ’150 patent is invalid as obvious.\\nIts challenge to the district court’s judgment of nonobvious-\\nness focuses solely on whether the ’150 patent may\\nproperly claim priority from the earlier ’902 application.\\nThe priority question turns on whether the ’902 application\\nprovides an adequate written description of the claims of\\nthe ’150 patent. See Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107\\nF.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Under 35 U.S.C.\\n§ 112, “[t]he specification shall contain a written descrip-\\ntion of the invention.” The test for adequate written de-\\nscription “is whether the disclosure of the application relied\\nupon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the\\ninventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of\\nthe filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598\\nF.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The disclosure\\nmust demonstrate that the patentee truly invented the\\nsubject matter encompassed by the claims. Whether a\\nclaim satisfies the written description requirement is a\\nquestion of fact. Id..\\n As relevant to this issue, claim 1 of the ’150 patent re-\\ncites a pharmaceutical film with: (1) “at least one water-\\nsoluble polymer component consisting of [PEO] in combi-\\nnation with a[n] [HCP]”; wherein (2) “the water-soluble\\npolymer component comprises greater than 75% [PEO] and\\nup to 25% [HCP]”; (3) the PEO comprises at least one L-\\nPEO and at least one H-PEO; and (4) the L-PEO “com-\\nprises about 60% or more in the polymer component.” ’150\\npatent col. 57 ll. 35–54.\\n The district court held that the ’150 patent properly\\nclaimed priority from the ’902 application. In making that\\ndetermination, the court relied primarily on the following\\npassage from the ’902 application:\\n\\n36 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n For instance, certain film properties, such as fast\\n dissolution rates and high tear resistance, may be\\n attained by combining small amounts of high mo-\\n lecular weight PEOs with larger amounts of lower\\n molecular weight PE[O]s. Desirably, such composi-\\n tions contain about 60% or greater levels of the\\n lower molecular weight PEO in the PEO-blend pol-\\n ymer component.\\n To balance the properties of adhesion prevention,\\n fast dissolution rate, and good tear resistance, de-\\n sirable film compositions may include about 50% to\\n 75% low molecular weight PEO, optionally com-\\n bined with a small amount of a high molecular\\n weight PEO, with the remainder of the polymer\\n component containing a hydrophilic cellulosic poly-\\n mer (HPC or HPMC).\\nDRL ’150 Decision, 2017 WL 3782782, at *6 (emphases\\nadded) (quoting J.A. 70035). The court interpreted the\\nterm “polymer component” to refer to all polymers in the\\nformulation, including L-PEO, H-PEO, and any HCP. Id.\\nTogether with example formulations listed in the ’902 ap-\\nplication, the court found that this passage provided ade-\\nquate support for the ’150 patent’s priority claim. Id. at *6.\\n On appeal, DRL argues that the district court clearly\\nerred in finding that the ’902 application provided written\\ndescription support for the asserted claims of the ’150 pa-\\ntent. According to DRL, the ’902 application fails to de-\\nscribe the claimed composition with the specificity of the\\n’150 patent claims.\\n Indivior responds that the ’902 application reasonably\\nconveys to a skilled artisan that the inventor invented and\\ndisclosed the claimed films as of the application’s filing\\ndate.\\n We agree with Indivior that the district court did not\\nclearly err in finding that the ’902 application provides\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 37\\n\\n\\n\\nadequate written description support for the asserted\\nclaims of the ’150 patent. To obtain certain desirable film\\nproperties, the ’902 application recommends that films\\nshould combine small amounts of H-PEO with larger\\namounts of L-PEO, and desirably the films should have at\\nleast 60% L-PEO “in the PEO-blend polymer component.”\\nJ.A. 70035. Considering a broader set of properties, the\\napplication prescribes 50–75% L-PEO with the balance of\\nthe “polymer component” being H-PEO and HCP. Id. The\\napplication also discloses multiple example formulations\\nwith varying levels of L-PEO, H-PEO, and HCP. The court\\ndid not clearly err in finding that these disclosures would\\nconvey to a skilled artisan the claimed films with a polymer\\ncomponent containing at least 75% PEO, at least 60% L-\\nPEO, some H-PEO, and up to 25% HCP.\\n Addressing only the examples, DRL argues that no em-\\nbodiment disclosed in the ’902 application has the precise\\ncombination of L-PEO, H-PEO, and HCP claimed in the\\n’150 patent. It analogizes this case to Purdue Pharma L.P.\\nv. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000). There, we\\nconsidered a claim to a formulation characterized by a cer-\\ntain sustained release ratio. Id. at 1322–23. However, the\\nspecification never indicated that the ratio was “an im-\\nportant defining quality of the formulation, nor d[id] the\\ndisclosure even motivate one to calculate the ratio.” Id. at\\n1327. By claiming a characteristic of the formulation that\\nwas “not discussed even in passing in the disclosure,” the\\npatentee ran afoul of the written description requirement,\\nand we thus affirmed the district court’s judgment of inva-\\nlidity. Id. at 1327, 1329. Here, however, the ’902 applica-\\ntion does direct a skilled artisan to the claimed polymer\\ncomponent. Consistent with the ’150 patent claims, the ap-\\nplication discloses that a polymer component with 60% L-\\nPEO has desirable properties and that the remainder of the\\ncomponent may include H-PEO and HCP. The district\\ncourt did not clearly err in finding that these disclosures\\nsupported the ’150 patent claims.\\n\\n38 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n DRL suggests that the ’902 application does not dis-\\nclose that the polymer component comprises 60% L-PEO\\nbecause the application in the relevant sentence refers only\\nto the “PEO-blend polymer component” comprising 60% L-\\nPEO. DRL Appellant Br. 56–57 (emphasis added). DRL\\nindicates that the “PEO-blend polymer component” in-\\ncludes only PEO and not an HCP. But it provides no evi-\\ndence or reasoning in support of that interpretation, and\\nthe application’s disclosure is to the contrary. For each ex-\\nample formulation including an HCP, percentages for L-\\nPEO and H-PEO are shown for the entire polymer compo-\\nnent, and never for just the PEO part. J.A. 70085. We\\nthink “PEO-blend polymer component” simply refers to a\\npolymer component containing a PEO blend and is not ex-\\nclusive of other ingredients. Accordingly, we conclude that\\nthe district court did not clearly err in interpreting “poly-\\nmer component” to consistently include all the polymers in\\nthe formulation.\\n In sum, the ’902 application discloses films with vary-\\ning amounts of L-PEO, H-PEO, and HCP, describes films\\nwith 60% L-PEO as having desirable properties, and states\\nthat the remainder of the polymer component apart from\\nL-PEO may include H-PEO and HCP. This disclosure of\\nthe ’902 application reasonably conveyed to a skilled arti-\\nsan the films claimed in the ’150 patent. The specification\\nneed not recite the claimed invention in haec verba. Ariad,\\n598 F.3d at 1352. We affirm the district court’s holding\\nthat the ’150 patent is entitled to the priority date of the\\n’902 application. As DRL makes no other challenge to the\\ncourt’s judgment of nonobviousness, we affirm that holding\\nas well.\\n E. Validity of ’832 Patent\\n We last address Indivior’s challenge to the district\\ncourt’s judgment that claims 15–19 are invalid as obvious.\\nWatson Decision, 2016 WL 3186659, at *11. In a parallel\\ninter partes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 39\\n\\n\\n\\nBoard held claims 15–19 unpatentable as anticipated and\\nobvious, BioDelivery, 2015 WL 4045328, at *16, which we\\naffirmed, 667 F. App’x 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Indivior argues\\nthat the Board’s unpatentability decision and our subse-\\nquent affirmance moot the parties’ dispute over the validity\\nof claims 15–19 and requests vacatur of the district court’s\\njudgment of invalidity. No party raises any objection to va-\\ncatur.\\n Indivior argues that, “in general, when a claim is can-\\ncelled, the patentee loses any cause of action based on that\\nclaim, and any pending litigation in which the claims are\\nasserted becomes moot.” Indivior Cross-Appellant Br. 89\\n(quoting Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 721 F.3d\\n1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). We agree that the Board’s\\ndecision and our affirmance mooted any dispute over the\\ndistrict court’s decision regarding claims 15–19 of the ’832\\npatent. We also agree that vacatur is proper because moot-\\nness was not caused by Indivior’s voluntary action. See\\nU.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S.\\n18, 24–25 (1994). Indeed, Indivior opposed the inter partes\\nreview, appealed the decision, and sought review en banc.\\nNo party contends on appeal that vacatur would be inap-\\npropriate in these circumstances.\\n CONCLUSION\\n We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments\\nbut find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we\\naffirm the district court’s judgments that DRL and Alvogen\\ndo not infringe the ’514 patent, that Watson does infringe\\nthe ’514 patent, and that Watson, Teva, and DRL failed to\\nprove that the ’514 patent is invalid. We likewise affirm\\nthe court’s judgment that DRL does not infringe the ’150\\npatent, and that DRL failed to prove that the ’150 patent is\\ninvalid. We vacate the court’s decision that claims 15–19\\nof the ’832 patent are invalid as obvious.\\n AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART\\n\\n40 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n COSTS\\n No costs.\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 41\\n\\n\\n\\n APPENDIX\\n’514 Patent Claim 62\\n 62. A drug delivery composition comprising:\\n (i) a cast film comprising a flowable water-soluble\\n or water swellable film-forming matrix comprising\\n one or more substantially water soluble or water\\n swellable polymers; and a desired amount of at\\n least one active;\\n wherein said matrix has a viscosity sufficient to aid\\n in substantially maintaining non-self-aggregating\\n uniformity of the active in the matrix;\\n (ii) a particulate active substantially uniformly sta-\\n tioned in the matrix; and\\n (iii) a taste-masking agent selected from the group\\n consisting of flavors, sweeteners, flavor enhancers,\\n and combinations thereof to provide taste-masking\\n of the active;\\n wherein the particulate active has a particle size of\\n 200 microns or less and said flowable water-soluble\\n or water swellable film-forming matrix is capable\\n of being dried without loss of substantial uniformity\\n in the stationing of said particulate active therein;\\n and\\n wherein the uniformity subsequent to casting and\\n drying of the matrix is measured by substantially\\n equally sized individual unit doses which do not\\n vary by more than 10% of said desired amount of\\n said at least one active.\\n’514 patent col. 73 l. 48–col. 74 l. 9 (emphasis added).\\n’150 Patent Claim 1\\n 1. A mucosally-adhesive water-soluble film product\\n comprising:\\n\\n42 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n an analgesic opiate pharmaceutical active; and\\n at least one water-soluble polymer component con-\\n sisting of polyethylene oxide in combination with a\\n hydrophilic cellulosic polymer;\\n wherein:\\n the water-soluble polymer component comprises\\n greater than 75% polyethylene oxide and up to 25%\\n hydrophilic cellulosic polymer;\\n the polyethylene oxide comprises one or more low\\n molecular weight polyethylene oxides and one or\\n more higher molecular weight polyethylene oxides,\\n the molecular weight of the low molecular weight\\n polyethylene oxide being in the range 100,000 to\\n 300,000 and the molecular weight of the higher mo-\\n lecular weight polyethylene oxide being in the\\n range 600,000 to 900,000; and\\n the polyethylene oxide of low molecular weight\\n comprises about 60% or more in the polymer com-\\n ponent.\\n’150 patent col. 57 ll. 37–54.\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n INDIVIOR INC., FKA RECKITT BENCKISER\\n PHARMACEUTICALS INC., INDIVIOR UK\\nLIMITED, FKA RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,\\n AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC., FKA\\n MONOSOL RX, LLC,\\n Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\nDR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A., DR. REDDY'S\\nLABORATORIES INC., WATSON LABORATORIES\\n INC., ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC., TEVA\\n PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,\\n Defendants-Appellants\\n\\n PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., INTELGENX\\n TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,\\n Defendants\\n ______________________\\n\\n2017-2587, 2018-1010, 2018-1058, 2018-1062, 2018-1114,\\n 2018-1115, 2018-1176, 2018-1177\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Delaware in Nos. 1:13-cv-01674-RGA, 1:14-cv-\\n00422-RGA, 1:14-cv-01451-RGA, 1:14-cv-01574-RGA, 1:16-\\ncv-00178-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.\\n\\n -------------------------------------------------------------\\n\\n2 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n INDIVIOR INC., FKA RECKITT BENCKISER\\n PHARMACEUTICALS INC., INDIVIOR UK\\nLIMITED, FKA RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,\\n AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n ALVOGEN PINE BROOK, LLC,\\n Defendant-Cross-Appellant\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1949, 2018-2045\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Delaware in Nos. 1:15-cv-00477-RGA, 1:15-cv-\\n01016-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.\\n ______________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4416382/\", \"author_raw\": \"LOURIE, Circuit Judge.\"}, {\"author\": \"MAYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"MAYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting.\\n There is no need for this court to reach the issue of in-\\nfringement because the three patents—U.S. Patent Nos.\\n8,017,150 B2 (the “’150 patent”), 8,603,514 B2 (the “’514\\npatent”), and 8,900,497 B2 (the “’497 patent”)—asserted by\\nIndivior Inc., Indivior UK Limited, and Aquestive Thera-\\npeutics, Inc. (collectively, “Indivior”) are invalid as obvious.\\nI therefore respectfully dissent.\\n I. Invalidity of the ’497 and ’514 Patents\\n Indivior’s ’497 and ’514 patents are directed to sublin-\\ngual films for delivering active ingredients. See J.A. 334–\\n51, 412–25. According to Indivior, its patents provide a\\nnovel solution for attaining the active ingredient uni-\\nformity required in pharmaceutical films. Cross-Appel-\\nlants’ Br. 55–62. To the contrary, however, long before the\\npriority dates of Indivior’s patents, multiple prior art\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 3\\n\\n\\n\\nreferences taught both methods to manufacture sublingual\\nfilms and techniques for achieving film content uniformity.\\n The earliest possible priority date for the ’497 and ’514\\npatents is October 2001. See J.A. 170. For well over a dec-\\nade prior to this date, others had achieved uniform distri-\\nbution of active ingredients on mucosally-administered\\nfilms. U.S. Patent No. 4,849,246 (“Schmidt”), for example,\\nrecognized that “hitherto known proposals” for producing\\ndrug delivery films had been unable to achieve the drug\\ncontent uniformity required by regulators. J.A. 70217\\n(1:60). Schmidt explained that with his claimed invention,\\nwhich used a roll-coating method, “[t]he reproducible con-\\nstant weight [was] only +/-2.5% for 20 g/m² and approxi-\\nmately +/-10% for 1 g/m² over [the] entire surface.” J.A.\\n70219 (6:1–3). Schmidt further taught that by roll-coating\\nwith a “doctor blade,” it was “possible to achieve a weight\\ntolerance per surface unit down to +/-1%.” J.A. 70219\\n(6:37–42).\\n Schmidt focused on the importance of viscosity in\\nachieving uniformity, explaining that “[c]oating materials\\nwith . . . a viscosity of approximately 30 to 10,000 cPs ha[d]\\nproved particularly satisfactory” in ensuring “uniform ac-\\ntive ingredient content.” J.A. 70218 (4:50–59). Indeed,\\nSchmidt specifically taught that by making the viscosity of\\na wet matrix sufficiently thick, one could successfully in-\\nhibit the movement of particles during the time it takes to\\ndry the coated film. J.A. 70218 (4:20–59).\\n U.S. Patent No. 6,552,024 B1 (“Chen”) likewise taught\\nhow to obtain uniform distribution of pharmacological ac-\\ntive ingredients on a film. See J.A. 70210 (9:20–27), 70211\\n(11:7–15, 12:1–28). Specifically, Chen disclosed a process\\nfor making mucoadhesive oral thin films, explaining that\\nafter mixing and degassing the ingredients, “[t]he formula-\\ntion [i]s then coated on the non-siliconized side of a polyes-\\nter film at a wet thickness of 10 [millimeters] and dried in\\na hot air circulating oven at 50° [Celsius] for 9 minutes.”\\n\\n4 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nJ.A. 70211 (12:12–15). Notably, moreover, U.S. Patent No.\\n5,881,476 (“Strobush”) disclosed drying a film from the bot-\\ntom, see J.A. 70241 (9:44–51), and explained that the\\nclaimed method could be used to avoid introducing “mottle”\\ninto the final film product, J.A. 70239 (6:26).\\n Indivior’s efforts to evade the overwhelming evidence\\nof obviousness are unavailing. Indivior first argues that\\nSchmidt does not disclose a film having the drug content\\nuniformity required by the ’514 patent. See Cross-Appel-\\nlants’ Br. 57. In support, it contends that Schmidt only\\nteaches creating films with uniform weight, not with uni-\\nform active drug content. This argument is wholly without\\nmerit. On its face, Schmidt asserts that the methods it dis-\\ncloses can be used to create films meeting the uniformity\\nrequirements for the active ingredient of a drug. See J.A.\\n70217 (1:59–2:47). Schmidt specifically explains that the\\nprior art was not able to achieve the requisite “uniform ac-\\ntive ingredient distribution,” J.A. 70217 (1:62), but that the\\nclaimed invention does not suffer from the same “disad-\\nvantage[],” J.A. 70217 (2:14–15).\\n Indivior suggests that Schmidt only measured weight\\nuniformity rather than drug content uniformity. Cross-Ap-\\npellants’ Br. 57; see ante at 29. This argument falls flat,\\nhowever, given that Indivior’s own patents acknowledge\\nthat weight uniformity is a proxy for active ingredient uni-\\nformity:\\n The additive weights of eight randomly selected\\n dosage forms . . . are as shown in Table 2 below. . . .\\n The individual dosages were consistently 0.04 gm,\\n which shows that the distribution of the compo-\\n nents within the film was consistent and uniform.\\n This is based on the simple princip[le] that each\\n component has a unique density. Therefore, when\\n the components of different densities are combined\\n in a uniform manner in a film, as in the present\\n invention, individual dosage[] forms from the same\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 5\\n\\n\\n\\n film of substantially equally dimensions[] will con-\\n tain the same mass. J.A. 353 (41:50–42:33).\\n Indivior also complains that even if Schmidt teaches\\nhow to create a uniform wet matrix, it does not teach how\\nto maintain uniformity during the drying process. Cross-\\nAppellants Br. 57; see ante at 29–32. But Strobush teaches\\nthe precise bottom drying methods that the ’497 and ’514\\npatents rely upon to achieve uniform dried films. See J.A.\\n70239 (6:24–27) (teaching high-speed drying), 70241 (9:44–\\n51) (describing an embodiment which uses “air foils . . . lo-\\ncated below the coated substrate” to dry from the bottom).\\n According to Indivior, a skilled artisan would not have\\nturned to Strobush’s bottom drying method because Stro-\\nbush addresses “mottle,” which is a surface defect, rather\\nthan drug content uniformity. Cross-Appellants Br. 57; see\\nante at 32. To the contrary, however, Strobush defines\\n“mottle” as “an irregular pattern or non-uniform density\\ndefect.” J.A. 70237 (1:59–60) (emphasis added). Given that\\n“mottle” is defined as a non-uniform density defect, a\\nskilled artisan would certainly have appreciated that a dry-\\ning technique that reduces mottle could also be employed\\nto reduce non-uniformity.\\n All the elements recited in the challenged claims of In-\\ndivior’s ’497 and ’514 patents are explicitly disclosed in the\\nprior art. Even if they were not, however, obviousness and\\nanticipation are different beasts. While anticipation re-\\nquires that a single prior art reference disclose each and\\nevery element of the claimed invention, see, e.g., In re\\nSmith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017), ob-\\nviousness demands a more “expansive and flexible ap-\\nproach,” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415\\n(2007). In evaluating obviousness, the pertinent perspec-\\ntive is that of an artisan endowed not only with “ordinary\\nskill” and “ordinary creativity,” but also with the capacity\\nto recognize and deploy “predictable solutions” to well-\\nknown problems. Id. at 421; see also Randall Mfg. v. Rea,\\n\\n6 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“In KSR, the Su-\\npreme Court criticized a rigid approach to determining ob-\\nviousness based on the disclosures of individual prior-art\\nreferences, with little recourse to the knowledge, creativity,\\nand common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would\\nhave brought to bear when considering combinations or\\nmodifications.”).\\n Here, given that Schmidt teaches uniform active ingre-\\ndient distribution, J.A. 70217, the only real dispute on the\\nobviousness question is whether a skilled artisan would\\nhave been motivated to dry films from the bottom rather\\nthan from the top, as explicitly disclosed in Strobush, J.A.\\n70241 (9:44–51). At the time of the purported invention\\ndescribed in the ’497 and ’514 patents, it was well-recog-\\nnized that conventional drying methods—which shot hot\\nair from the top of a drying oven—resulted in films that\\nwere overly dry and rippled, i.e., “overcooked,” on top and\\nwet, i.e., “undercooked,” on the bottom. See J.A. 334 (3:33–\\n57), 346–47 (28:58–29:1). The district court determined\\nthat a person of ordinary skill “would possess a bachelor’s\\ndegree in pharmaceutical science, chemistry, or a related\\nfield, plus two to five years of relevant experience in devel-\\noping drug formulations” and “would also be a member of\\na team, which would include an engineer or scientist with\\none to three years of relevant experience manufacturing\\nand optimizing various types of film products using coating\\nand drying processes.” J.A. 169. There can be no dispute\\nthat such a person would have readily recognized that\\nswitching the location of the heat source from the top to the\\nbottom would likely ameliorate the problem of films that\\nwere overly dry on the top and overly wet on the bottom.\\nIndeed, any person having basic familiarity with a kitchen\\noven would certainly appreciate that, since hot air rises,\\nheating an item from the bottom rather than the top facil-\\nitates uniform baking. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 419 (explain-\\ning that “[g]ranting patent protection to advances that\\nwould occur in the ordinary course without real innovation\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 7\\n\\n\\n\\nretards progress”); id. at 421 (stating that “[r]igid preven-\\ntative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common\\nsense” have no place in the obviousness analysis).\\n II. Invalidity of the ’150 Patent\\n Indivior’s ’150 patent is likewise invalid as obvious.\\nThe district court erred in concluding that the ’150 patent\\ncan claim priority to the 2003 filing date of its parent ap-\\nplication, U.S. Patent Application No. 60/473,902 (the “’902\\napplication”). See J.A. 198. To obtain the benefit of a par-\\nent application’s filing date, “the claims of the later-filed\\napplication must be supported by the written description\\nin the parent in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art\\ncan clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed\\ninvention as of the filing date sought.” Anascape, Ltd. v.\\nNintendo of Am., Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010)\\n(internal quotation marks omitted). In this regard,\\n“[e]ntitlement to a filing date extends only to subject mat-\\nter that is disclosed; not to that which is obvious.” Research\\nCorp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 870\\n(Fed. Cir. 2010). Accordingly, “the parent application must\\nactually or inherently disclose the elements of the later-\\nfiled claims.” Id.; see also PowerOasis, Inc. v. T–Mobile\\nUSA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008).\\n The ’150 patent is not entitled to rely on the priority\\ndate of the ’902 application because that application no-\\nwhere conveys possession of the specific polymer compo-\\nnent recited in independent claim 1. That claim requires\\nlow molecular weight polyethylene oxide (“PEO”), high mo-\\nlecular weight PEO, and a hydrophilic cellulosic polymer\\n(“HCP”), and further specifies that the low molecular\\nweight PEO must be at least 60% of the polymer compo-\\nnent and that the HCP can be no more than 25% of the\\npolymer component. J.A. 279 (57:36–54). The ’902 appli-\\ncation, however, does not suggest possession of a polymer\\ncomponent including at least 60% low molecular weight\\nPEO and at most 25% HCP. Indeed, as the district court\\n\\n8 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ncorrectly acknowledged, the ’902 application provides over\\nninety examples, and yet not one of them satisfies the lim-\\nitations of claim 1. See J.A. 197.\\n In concluding that the ’902 application supplied ade-\\nquate written description support for claim 1, the district\\ncourt relied primarily upon the following passage:\\n For instance, certain film properties, such as\\n fast dissolution rates and high tear resistance, may\\n be attained by combining small amounts of high\\n molecular weight PEOs with larger amounts of\\n lower molecular weight PEOs. Desirably, such\\n compositions contain about 60% or greater levels of\\n the lower molecular weight PEO in the PEO-blend\\n polymer component.\\n To balance the properties of adhesion preven-\\n tion, fast dissolution rate, and good tear resistance,\\n desirable film compositions may include about 50%\\n to 75% low molecular weight PEO, optionally com-\\n bined with a small amount of a higher molecular\\n weight PEO, with the remainder of the polymer\\n component containing a[n] [HCP]. J.A. 70035.\\n On its face, however, this passage contradicts the\\ncourt’s reading. As discussed above, claim 1 requires that\\nthe low molecular weight PEO constitute “about 60% or\\nmore [of] the polymer component,” J.A. 279 (57:54), but the\\npassage relied upon by the district court states that the low\\nmolecular weight PEO can be as low as 50% of the polymer\\ncomponent. J.A. 70035. This passage further states that\\n“[d]esirably” there should be “60% or greater levels of the\\nlower molecular weight PEO in the PEO-blend polymer\\ncomponent,” i.e., there should be at least 60% low molecu-\\nlar weight PEO in the blend of high and low molecular\\nweight PEO. J.A. 70035. Importantly, however, requiring\\n60% or more low molecular weight PEO in the “PEO-blend\\npolymer component” is very different from requiring 60%\\nor more low molecular weight PEO in the component\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 9\\n\\n\\n\\nconsisting of low molecular weight PEO, high molecular\\nweight PEO, and HCP as claim 1 requires. Even more fun-\\ndamentally, the passage relied upon by the district court\\nsays nothing about claim 1’s mandate that the HCP can be\\nno more than 25% of the polymer component.\\n “Requiring a written description of the invention limits\\npatent protection to those who actually perform the diffi-\\ncult work of ‘invention’—that is, conceive of the complete\\nand final invention with all its claimed limitations—and\\ndisclose the fruits of that effort to the public.” Ariad\\nPharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353 (Fed.\\nCir. 2010) (en banc). Nothing in the ’902 application even\\narguably suggests possession of a polymer component in-\\ncluding at least 60% low molecular weight PEO and at most\\n25% HCP as required by claim 1. Because the district court\\nerred in concluding that Indivior was entitled to rely on the\\n2003 priority date of the ’902 application, the asserted\\nclaims of the ’150 patent are invalid as obvious.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4416382/\", \"author_raw\": \"MAYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"NEWMAN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MAYER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"LOURIE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":4,"string":"4"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4639129/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: INDIVIOR INC., Fka Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., Indivior UK Limited, Fka RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Fka MonoSol Rx, LLC, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc., Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Defendants-Appellants Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Intelgenx Technologies Corp., Defendants Indivior Inc., Fka Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., Indivior UK Limited, Fka RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Alvogen Pine Brook, LLC, Defendant-Cross-Appellant\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n INDIVIOR INC., FKA RECKITT BENCKISER\n PHARMACEUTICALS INC., INDIVIOR UK\nLIMITED, FKA RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,\n AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC., FKA\n MONOSOL RX, LLC,\n Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants\n\n v.\n\nDR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A., DR. REDDY'S\nLABORATORIES INC., WATSON LABORATORIES\n INC., ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC., TEVA\n PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,\n Defendants-Appellants\n\n PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., INTELGENX\n TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,\n Defendants\n ______________________\n\n2017-2587, 2018-1010, 2018-1058, 2018-1062, 2018-1114,\n 2018-1115, 2018-1176, 2018-1177\n ______________________\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\nDistrict of Delaware in Nos. 1:13-cv-01674-RGA, 1:14-cv-\n00422-RGA, 1:14-cv-01451-RGA, 1:14-cv-01574-RGA, 1:16-\ncv-00178-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.\n\n -------------------------------------------------------------\n\n2 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\n INDIVIOR INC., FKA RECKITT BENCKISER\n PHARMACEUTICALS INC., INDIVIOR UK\nLIMITED, FKA RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,\n AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\n\n v.\n\n ALVOGEN PINE BROOK, LLC,\n Defendant-Cross-Appellant\n ______________________\n\n 2018-1949, 2018-2045\n ______________________\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\nDistrict of Delaware in Nos. 1:15-cv-00477-RGA, 1:15-cv-\n01016-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: July 12, 2019\n ______________________\n\n JEFFREY B. ELIKAN, Covington & Burling LLP, Wash-\nington, DC, argued for all plaintiffs-cross-appellants in\n2017-2587 and for all plaintiffs-appellants in 2018-1949.\nIndivior Inc., Indivior UK Limited also represented by\nERICA NICOLE ANDERSEN, BETH S. BRINKMANN, ROBERT\nJASON FOWLER, MATTHEW AARON KUDZIN, JEFFREY\nHOWARD LERNER, ASHLEY KWON; DUSTIN B. WEEKS, Trout-\nman Sanders LLP, Atlanta, GA; DANIEL LADOW, JAMES M.\nBOLLINGER, MAGNUS ESSUNGER, KATHERINE HARIHAR,\nTIMOTHY P. HEATON, GERALD EAMES PORTER, New York,\nNY; CHARANJIT BRAHMA, San Francisco, CA.\n\n JAMES FRANCIS HIBEY, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Wash-\nington, DC, for plaintiff-cross-appellant Aquestive\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 3\n\n\n\nTherapeutics, Inc. in 2017-2587 and for plaintiff-appellant\nAquestive Therapeutics, Inc. in 2018-1949. Also repre-\nsented by JAMIE LUCIA, San Francisco, CA.\n\n KEVIN PAUL MARTIN, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston,\nMA, argued for defendants-appellants Dr. Reddy's Labora-\ntories, S.A., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc. in 2017-2587.\nAlso represented by ELAINE BLAIS, EDWINA CLARKE,\nROBERT FREDERICKSON, III, ALEXANDRA LU; ROBERT V.\nCERWINSKI, IRA J. LEVY, New York, NY.\n\n STEPHEN R. SMEREK, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los An-\ngeles, CA, argued for defendants-appellants Watson Labor-\natories Inc., Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Teva\nPharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in 2017-2587. Also represented\nby JASON CRAIG HAMILTON; GEORGE C. LOMBARDI, MICHAEL\nKEENAN NUTTER, Chicago, IL; GEOFFREY P. EATON, Wash-\nington, DC.\n\n STEVEN H. SKLAR, Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd., Chicago,\nIL, argued for defendant-cross-appellant in 2018-1949.\nAlso represented by DAVID AIRAN, GREGORY BAYS, NICOLE\nKOPINSKI, JAMES SANNER.\n ______________________\n\n Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.\n Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge LOURIE.\n Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge MAYER.\nLOURIE, Circuit Judge.\n Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Labor-\natories Inc. (collectively, “DRL”); Watson Laboratories Inc.\nand Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (collectively, “Watson”);\nand Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) appeal from\nseveral decisions of the United States District Court for the\nDistrict of Delaware pertaining to U.S. Patents 8,603,514\n(the “’514 patent”), 8,900,497 (the “’497 patent”), and\n\n4 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\n8,017,150 (the “’150 patent”). Specifically, DRL appeals\nfrom two decisions holding the asserted claims of the ’514,\n’497, and ’150 patents not invalid as obvious. Reckitt\nBenckiser Pharm. Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A., Nos. 14-\n1451-RGA, 14-1573-RGA, 14-1574-RGA, 2017 WL 3837312\n(D. Del. Aug. 31, 2017) (“DRL ’514 Decision”); Reckitt\nBenckiser Pharm. Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A., No. 14-\n1451-RGA, 2017 WL 3782782 (D. Del. Aug. 31, 2017) (“DRL\n’150 Decision”). Watson and Teva appeal from the court’s\njudgment in a third decision that the ’514 patent is not in-\nvalid as indefinite. Reckitt Benckiser Pharm. Inc. v. Wat-\nson Labs., Inc., Nos. 13-1674-RGA, 14-422-RGA, 2016 WL\n3186659 (D. Del. June 3, 2016) (“Watson Decision”); J.A.\n212–14. 1 Watson also appeals from the court’s finding in\nthat decision that Watson infringes the ’514 patent, as well\nas the court’s subsequent order denying it relief from the\ninfringement judgment under Rule 59. Reckitt Benckiser\nPharm. Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc., Nos. 13-1674-RGA, 14-\n422-RGA, 2017 WL 3820943 (D. Del. Aug. 31, 2017) (“Rule\n59 Decision”).\n Indivior Inc., Indivior UK Limited, and Aquestive\nTherapeutics, Inc. (collectively, “Indivior”) cross-appeal\nfrom the district court’s findings in the two DRL decisions\nthat DRL does not infringe either the ’514 or the ’150 pa-\ntent. Indivior also appeals from a fourth decision by the\nsame court finding that Alvogen Pine Brook, LLC (“Al-\nvogen”) does not infringe the ’514 patent. Indivior Inc. v.\nMylan Techs. Inc., 298 F. Supp. 3d 775 (D. Del. 2018) (“Al-\nvogen Decision”). Finally, Indivior requests that the court’s\njudgment in the Watson case of invalidity of claims 15–19\nof U.S. Patent 8,475,832 (the “’832 patent”) be vacated as\nmoot.\n\n\n\n\n 1 Unless otherwise noted, all J.A. citations are to the\njoint appendix filed in the DRL appeal.\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 5\n\n\n\n We vacate as moot the district court’s decision holding\nclaims 15–19 of the ’832 patent invalid as obvious. We af-\nfirm the court on all other issues.\n I. BACKGROUND\n Indivior markets and holds the New Drug Application\n(“NDA”) for Suboxone® sublingual film (“Suboxone Film”),\nan opioid addiction treatment that combines two active in-\ngredients: the opioid buprenorphine and the opioid antag-\nonist naloxone. Suboxone Film is applied below a patient’s\ntongue, where it then rapidly dissolves to release the active\ningredients. In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration\n(“FDA”) approved Indivior’s film product, the first such\nproduct to gain FDA approval. Previously, Indivior sold\nbuprenorphine/naloxone only in a tablet form.\n These appeals involve issues of infringement and inva-\nlidity of four patents covering pharmaceutical films and\nmethods of making them. However, the parties’ substan-\ntive disputes focus on only two patents, the ’514 and ’150\npatents. Both patents claim pharmaceutical films and are\nlisted in the Orange Book 2 as covering Suboxone Film.\nRepresentative claims of the two patents are set forth in\nthe Appendix. The ’497 patent is directed to film manufac-\nturing methods, and the parties do not distinguish it from\nthe ’514 patent with respect to the issues on appeal.\nAquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (“Aquestive”) owns these\nthree patents and exclusively licenses them to Indivior. 3\n\n\n\n\n 2 This publication is formally entitled “Approved\nDrug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evalua-\ntions.”\n 3 Indivior was formerly known as Reckitt Benckiser\nPharmaceuticals Inc. Aquestive was formerly known as\nMonoSol Rx, LLC. For simplicity, we refer to the former\nentities by their present names.\n\n6 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\nThe fourth patent, the ’832 patent, claims film formula-\ntions and is owned by Indivior.\n A. The Patents in Suit\n 1. The ’514 and ’497 Patents\n The ’514 patent claims pharmaceutical films with a\nuniform distribution of active ingredient. As described in\nthe specification, drug content uniformity is required by\nregulatory authorities yet difficult to achieve in practice be-\ncause of problems in manufacturing the films. ’514 patent\ncol. 2 ll. 18–21, 42–46, 57–59. Generally, a film may be\nmade by mixing an active compound with a solvent to form\na flowable matrix, casting the mixture onto a planar sur-\nface, and then drying the film to produce a solid sheet. Id.\ncol. 5 ll. 41–54, col. 6 ll. 49–60.\n Multiple factors in the film-making process can affect\nuniformity. “By avoiding the introduction of and eliminat-\ning excessive air in the mixing process, selecting polymers\nand solvents to provide a controllable viscosity and by dry-\ning the film in a rapid manner from the bottom up, such\n[uniform] films result.” Id. col. 23 ll. 16–20. Claim 62, the\nsole independent claim at issue from the ’514 patent, is rep-\nresentative and recites “a cast film comprising a flowable\nwater-soluble or water swellable film-forming matrix,”\n“wherein the uniformity subsequent to casting and drying\nof the matrix is measured by . . . unit doses which do not\nvary by more than 10%” of the amount of active. Id. col. 73\nll. 49–50, col. 74 ll. 6–9 (emphases added). The claim iden-\ntifies two parameters—viscosity and drying—that contrib-\nute to film uniformity: (1) the viscosity of the matrix must\nbe “sufficient to aid in substantially maintaining non-self-\naggregating uniformity” of the active (the “viscosity limita-\ntion”); and (2) the matrix must be “capable of being dried\nwithout loss of substantial uniformity of the active” (the\n“drying limitation”). Id. col. 73 l. 53–col. 74 l. 5. The other\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 7\n\n\n\nasserted claims of the ’514 patent all depend from claim\n62. 4\n The drying limitation is central to several of the issues\non appeal. The specification teaches that using conven-\ntional drying methods, which apply hot air to the top of the\nfilm, produces nonuniform films. E.g., id. col. 8 ll. 56–64,\ncol. 22 ll. 41–60. As hot air strikes the surface of the film,\nwater at the surface evaporates, forming a polymer skin\nthat seals the aqueous composition below. Id. col. 3 ll. 37–\n42. But as heating continues, the vapor pressure of the un-\nderlying aqueous composition builds, causing the film sur-\nface to stretch and ultimately break to allow the vapor to\nescape. Id. col. 3 ll. 45–49. The polymer skin then reforms,\nand the cycle of surface destruction and reformation con-\ntinues until drying is complete. Id. col. 3 ll. 49–52. Unde-\nsirably, this cycle produces a dried film that is uneven and\nnonuniform, which the patent refers to as the “ripple ef-\nfect.” Id. col. 3 ll. 51–54.\n To produce a uniform film, the specification discloses\ncontrolled drying processes that differ from conventional\ntechniques. In a section titled “Drying Wet Cast Films,” id.\ncol. 28 l. 51, the specification states that “[t]he wet film may\nbe dried using controlled bottom drying or controlled micro-\nwave drying, desirably in the absence of external air cur-\nrents or heat on the top (exposed) surface of the film,” id.\ncol. 28 ll. 52–55 (emphasis added). Such methods allow for\nvapor release without the disadvantages described above.\nId. col. 28 ll. 55–57. In contrast, “[c]onventional convection\nair drying from the top is not employed” because it produces\n\n\n 4 Indivior asserted claims 62–65, 69, 71, and 73\nagainst DRL, DRL ’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *2;\nclaims 62, 64, 65, 69, and 73 against Watson, Watson Deci-\nsion, 2016 WL 3186659, at *2; and claims 62, 63, 65, 69, 71,\nand 73 against Alvogen, Alvogen Decision, 298 F. Supp. 3d\nat 776.\n\n8 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\nthe ripple effect. Id. col. 28 ll. 57–64 (emphasis added). If\nsome top air is used, “it is balanced with the bottom air\ndrying to avoid non-uniformity.” Id. col. 29 ll. 1–3.\n In addition to controlling the location of the source of\nair, the specification teaches a “zone drying procedure” in\nwhich the film is dried along a belt with different drying\nzones that may vary in temperature, humidity, or other at-\nmospheric conditions. Id. col. 32 ll. 38–67. The specifica-\ntion does not specify whether the air comes from the top or\nbottom during zone drying but does indicate that zone dry-\ning “dries the film without surface skinning.” Id. col. 32 ll.\n49–50. Zone drying may be supplemented with additional\nprocesses such as lamination “so long as controlled drying\nis maintained in accordance with the invention.” Id. col. 33\nll. 1–4.\n Claim 62 also recites that the flowable matrix has a\nviscosity “sufficient to aid” in maintaining film uniformity.\nId. col. 73 ll. 53–55. The specification provides suitable\nranges of matrix viscosity, which are “generally” 400–\n100,000 centipoise, “preferably” 800–60,000 centipoise, and\n“most preferably” 1,000–40,000 centipoise. Id. col. 11 ll.\n26–29. The choice of polymer has an important role in af-\nfecting viscosity and hence film uniformity. See id. col. 11\nll. 15–24.\n Similar to the ’514 patent, the ’497 patent claims pro-\ncesses for making pharmaceutical films. Claim 24, the sole\nasserted claim, depends from claim 1, which recites a dry-\ning limitation similar to claim 62 of the ’514 patent: a “dry-\ning” step to form a film “having a substantially uniform\ndistribution” of an active compound. ’497 patent col. 57 ll.\n8–10. The specification of the ’497 patent is also substan-\ntively similar to that of the ’514 patent.\n 2. ’150 Patent\n Like the ’514 patent, the ’150 patent is directed to uni-\nform pharmaceutical films, but it claims them somewhat\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 9\n\n\n\ndifferently. Rather than identifying process parameters\nrelevant to film uniformity, as in the ’514 patent, the as-\nserted claims of the ’150 patent claim pharmaceutical films\nby their components. Claim 1 is representative of the as-\nserted claims and recites a film comprising an active ingre-\ndient and a water-soluble polymer component containing\ncertain proportions of polyethylene oxide (“PEO”), includ-\ning both low molecular weight PEO (“L-PEO”) and high\nmolecular weight PEO (“H-PEO”), and a hydrophilic cellu-\nlosic polymer. ’150 patent col. 57 ll. 35–54. The specifica-\ntion lists various “useful water[-]soluble polymers,”\nincluding PEO, hydrophilic cellulosic polymers, and a sep-\narate compound, polyvinyl pyrrolidone. Id. col. 15 ll. 47–\n52. The other asserted claims—4, 5, 8, and 9—each depend\nfrom claim 1. DRL ’150 Decision, 2017 WL 3782782, at *1.\n The ’150 patent claims priority from an earlier provi-\nsional application, U.S. Patent Application 60/473,902 (the\n“’902 application”).\n B. The Decisions on Appeal\n Several generic drug companies filed Abbreviated New\nDrug Applications (“ANDAs”) to market generic versions of\nSuboxone Film prior to the expiration of the patents in suit.\nIndivior then brought several actions for patent infringe-\nment, accusing DRL of infringing the ’514 and ’150 patents,\nand both DRL and Watson of infringing the ’497 patent;\nWatson of infringing the ’514 and ’832 patents; and Al-\nvogen of infringing the ’514 and ’497 patents. 5\n\n\n\n\n 5 DRL’s ANDA was originally owned by Teva, which\ntransferred its interest to DRL but maintained an interest\nin a related product. Teva agreed to be bound by the court’s\ndecision in the DRL ’514 patent case for the related prod-\nuct. J.A. 30001–06; see J.A. 210–14 (district court’s final\njudgments).\n\n10 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\n The district court held four bench trials and decided\nmultiple issues of infringement and validity concerning the\nasserted patents. We discuss only the issues pertinent to\nthese appeals.\n 1. Watson ’514 Decision\n The first trial over the ’514 patent involved Indivior’s\nclaim that Watson infringed the ’514 patent. Watson did\nnot request construction of the drying limitation. The court\nfound that Watson infringed the ’514 patent and that Wat-\nson did not meet its burden to prove the asserted claims\ninvalid as indefinite. Watson Decision, 2016 WL 3186659,\nat *16, *21.\n Indivior also asserted the ’832 patent against Watson.\nThe district court concluded that claims 15–19 of the ’832\npatent are invalid as obvious. Id. at *11. In a parallel inter\npartes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal\nBoard held claims 15–19 unpatentable as anticipated and\nobvious. BioDelivery Scis. Int’l, Inc. v. RB Pharm. Ltd., No.\nIPR2014-00325, 2015 WL 4045328, at *16 (P.T.A.B. June\n30, 2015), aff’d, 667 F. App’x 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016).\n After trial, Watson modified its film manufacturing\nprocess and requested relief under Rule 59 from the district\ncourt’s infringement judgment. The court denied relief,\nfinding no manifest injustice in upholding its final judg-\nment. Rule 59 Decision, 2017 WL 3820943, at *3.\n 2. DRL ’514 Decision and the Related Appeal\n In a second trial over the ’514 patent, the district court\nconsidered Indivior’s claims that DRL infringed the ’514\npatent and that DRL and Watson infringed the ’497 patent.\nUnlike in the previous case, the parties (including Watson)\ndisputed the meaning of the drying limitation. The court\nconstrued the drying limitation of the ’514 patent to mean\n“dried without solely employing conventional convection\nair drying from the top,” because it concluded that the spec-\nification disclaimed such conventional top drying\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 11\n\n\n\ntechniques. DRL ’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *4;\nsee Reckitt Benckiser Pharm. Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA,\nInc., Nos. 14-1451-RGA, 14-1573-RGA, 14-1574-RGA, 2016\nWL 3621632, at *10–11 (D. Del. June 29, 2016) (“Claim\nConstruction Order”). The court found that DRL’s drying\nprocess uses dryers where the sole source of heat comes\nfrom the top and thus does not infringe the asserted claims\nof the ’514 patent. DRL ’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312,\nat *5–6. For similar reasons, the court found that neither\nDRL nor Watson infringed the asserted claim of the ’497\npatent. DRL ’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *5–6, *9.\n The court also held that DRL failed to prove by clear\nand convincing evidence that the asserted claims of either\nthe ’514 or the ’497 patent would have been obvious over\nthe cited prior art. Id. at *20.\n After the district court’s judgment of noninfringement,\nIndivior amended claims of a pending continuation appli-\ncation that ultimately issued as U.S. Patent 9,931,305 (the\n“’305 patent”). The amendment removed the words “dried”\nand “drying” from the language of claim 62, instead recit-\ning that the film be “capable of being continuously cast . . .\nwithout loss of substantial uniformity” and that “uni-\nformity of the-continuously cast film is measured by\n. . . unit doses cut from the continuously cast film which do\nnot vary by more than 10%” of the amount of the active.\n’305 patent col. 73 ll. 21–29 (emphases added). The ’305\npatent shares a specification with, and is terminally dis-\nclaimed to, the ’514 patent.\n Soon after the ’305 patent issued, Indivior again sued\nDRL for patent infringement, this time asserting the ’305\npatent in the District of New Jersey. DRL had since\nlaunched its competing generic product, and Indivior\nmoved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary\ninjunction at the New Jersey court. DRL argued that In-\ndivior’s New Jersey action was barred as claim precluded\nby the Delaware court’s judgment. The New Jersey court\n\n12 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\nconcluded that claim preclusion likely would not apply and\nthat Indivior would likely be able to prove infringement.\nIndivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A., No. 17-CV-7111,\n2018 WL 3496643, at *8, *11 (D.N.J. July 20, 2018). Con-\nsequently, the court entered a temporary restraining order\nand then a preliminary injunction against DRL’s generic\nproduct. Id. at *14.\n DRL appealed to this court. Despite the claim amend-\nments, the panel majority held that the cast films claimed\nin the ’305 patent still had to be dried and were subject to\nthe same specification disclaimer as the ’514 patent. In-\ndivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., S.A., 752 F. App’x 1024,\n1031–32 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Indivior”). Under the proper\nconstruction, we concluded that the asserted claims of the\n’305 patent were materially identical to those of the ’514\npatent already adjudicated. Id. at 1034–35. Accordingly,\nwe held that Indivior’s New Jersey action was likely claim\nprecluded, vacated the court’s preliminary injunction, and\nremanded for further proceedings. Id. at 1035.\n 3. Alvogen ’514 Decision\n In the third trial over the ’514 patent, the district court\nconsidered Indivior’s claim that Alvogen infringed the ’514\npatent. The court construed the drying limitation as it did\nin the DRL ’514 Decision. Alvogen Decision, 298 F. Supp.\n3d at 779. And as in the DRL case, the court found that\nAlvogen’s film manufacturing process dries the films pri-\nmarily from the top and thus does not meet the drying lim-\nitation and does not infringe the asserted claims. Id. at\n784–85.\n 4. DRL ’150 Decision\n In addition to the ’514 patent, Indivior asserted that\nDRL infringed the ’150 patent under the doctrine of equiv-\nalents. The district court held a separate trial on the ’150\npatent and found that DRL does not infringe any of the as-\nserted claims. DRL ’150 Decision, 2017 WL 3782782, at\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 13\n\n\n\n*4–5. The court also held that DRL did not prove that the\nasserted claims of the ’150 patent would have been obvious.\nId. at *7–8.\n C. The Appeals\n DRL appeals from the district court’s judgments that\nthe asserted claims of the ’514, ’497, and ’150 patents are\nnot invalid as obvious. Watson and Teva appeal from the\ncourt’s judgments that the ’514 patent is not invalid as in-\ndefinite, that Watson infringes the ’514 patent, and that\nWatson is not entitled to Rule 59 relief from the infringe-\nment judgment.\n Indivior cross-appeals from the district court’s determi-\nnations that DRL does not infringe either the ’514 or the\n’150 patent and that Alvogen does not infringe the ’514 pa-\ntent. Indivior also requests vacatur of the court’s judgment\nthat certain claims of the ’832 patent would have been ob-\nvious over the cited prior art.\n We have jurisdiction over each appeal under 28 U.S.C.\n§ 1295(a)(1). We first address the parties’ disputes con-\ncerning the ’514 patent and then turn to the ’150 and ’832\npatents.\n II. DISCUSSION\n On appeal from a bench trial, we review a district\ncourt’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact\nfor clear error. Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc.,\n749 F.3d 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A factual finding is\nclearly erroneous if, despite some supporting evidence, we\nare left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake\nhas been made. United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S.\n364, 395 (1948). “The burden of overcoming the district\ncourt’s factual findings is, as it should be, a heavy one.” Po-\nlaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 789 F.2d 1556, 1559\n(Fed. Cir. 1986).\n\n14 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\n A. Infringement of the ’514 Patent\n Indivior challenges the district court’s judgments that\nDRL and Alvogen do not infringe the ’514 patent. Watson\nappeals from the court’s separate judgment that it does in-\nfringe the ’514 patent. We first consider Indivior’s cross-\nappeal and appeal and then turn to Watson’s appeal.\n An infringement analysis has two steps. Clare v.\nChrysler Grp. LLC, 819 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016).\nFirst, the court construes the asserted claims. Claim con-\nstruction is a question of law that may involve underlying\nfactual questions. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,\n135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). But when, as here, the court’s\nconstruction of the relevant limitation is based solely on\nthe intrinsic evidence, we review its construction de novo.\nHTC Corp. v. Cellular Commc’ns Equip., LLC, 877 F.3d\n1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Second, the court determines\nwhether the accused product meets each limitation of the\nclaim as construed, which is a question of fact that we re-\nview for clear error. Wright Med. Tech., Inc. v. Osteonics\nCorp., 122 F.3d 1440, 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1997).\n 1. Indivior’s Appeal and Cross-Appeal\n Indivior’s challenges to the district court’s judgments\nof noninfringement largely turn on the proper construction\nof the drying limitation. In the DRL and Alvogen cases,\nthe district court construed the drying limitation to mean\n“dried without solely employing conventional convection\nair drying from the top.” Alvogen Decision, 298 F. Supp. 3d\nat 779; DRL ’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *4; Claim\nConstruction Order, 2016 WL 3621632, at *11. That con-\nstruction rested on the court’s conclusion that the patentee\ndisclaimed drying wet cast films using solely conventional\nconvection air drying from the top. The court’s disclaimer\nconclusion was based on the ’514 patent specification’s ex-\npress statements of what the invention is, its repeated dis-\nparagement of conventional top drying methods, and the\npatent applicant’s characterization of the invention during\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 15\n\n\n\nprosecution. Claim Construction Order, 2016 WL 3621632,\nat *6, *11.\n In Indivior, we likewise concluded that the same spec-\nification in the related ’305 patent disclaimed conventional\ntop air drying. 752 F. App’x at 1031–32. In addressing\nwhether Indivior’s assertion of the ’305 patent raised the\nsame cause of action as the ’514 patent, we concluded:\n [T]he specification limits the scope of the “continu-\n ously cast” limitation in the ’305 claims as it lim-\n ited the scope of the “drying” limitation in the ’514\n claims. Specifically, films formed with conven-\n tional top air drying methods are excluded from the\n scope of both claim terms.\nId. at 1034–35 (emphasis added). We explained that\n“[w]hile the language of the claim terms changed, the scope\nof the claims did not materially change.” Id. at 1035 (em-\nphasis added). Even where different patents are asserted\nbetween two suits, claim preclusion bars a patentee from\nbringing successive suits accusing the defendant’s same\nproduct of infringing essentially the same patent claims.\nSimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC, 884 F.3d 1160, 1167 (Fed.\nCir. 2018); see Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 525 F.3d\n1319, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Because—and only because—\nthe asserted claims of the ’305 patent were materially the\nsame as those that were or could have been asserted in the\n’514 patent, we held that Indivior’s action on the ’305 pa-\ntent was likely claim precluded and that the district court\nabused its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction.\nIndivior, 752 F. App’x at 1035.\n In both the DRL and Alvogen appeals, Indivior argues\nthat the district court erred in concluding that the ’514 pa-\ntent specification disclaimed drying methods that use\nsolely conventional convection air drying from the top. In-\nstead, Indivior contends that the drying limitation should\nbe given its plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent that\nthe specification did disclaim certain top drying methods,\n\n16 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\nIndivior alternatively argues that the disclaimer cannot\nencompass zone drying.\n Both DRL and Alvogen respond that the district court\nproperly construed the drying limitation, as this court con-\nfirmed in Indivior.\n We agree with DRL and Alvogen that the district court\ncorrectly construed the drying limitation and that the ’514\npatent specification disclaims conventional top air drying.\nThe specification “is the single best guide to the meaning\nof a disputed term,” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,\n1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks\nomitted), and where it “makes clear that the invention does\nnot include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to\nbe outside the reach of the claims of the patent,” SciMed\nLife Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242\nF.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see Chi. Bd. Options\nExch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361, 1372\n(Fed. Cir. 2012). The asserted claims recite a film that is\n“capable of being dried without loss of substantial uni-\nformity,” but, as we already concluded in Indivior, and as\nwe again explain below, the specification repeatedly makes\nclear that conventional top air drying does not yield uni-\nform films. ’514 patent col. 74 ll. 3–5. Such drying is thus\noutside the reach of the claims.\n A specification may disclaim an embodiment by repeat-\nedly disparaging it. See Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,\n808 F.3d 509, 513–14 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Chi. Bd., 677 F.3d\nat 1372. Here, the specification repeatedly disparages con-\nventional top air drying because such drying does not pro-\nduce uniform films, the central object of the claimed\ninvention. For example, the specification teaches that “the\nconventional drying methods themselves are unable to pro-\nvide uniform films.” ’514 patent col. 3 ll. 14–16. In the\nsection focused on “Drying Wet Cast Films,” the specifica-\ntion likewise discloses that “[c]onventional convection air\ndrying from the top is not employed.” Id. col. 28 ll. 51, 57–\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 17\n\n\n\n58. And the patent explains why: conventional top air dry-\ning\n initiates drying at the top uppermost portion of the\n film, thereby forming a barrier against fluid flow,\n such as the evaporative vapors, and thermal flow,\n such as the thermal energy for drying. Such dried\n upper portions serve as a barrier to further vapor\n release as the portions beneath are dried, which re-\n sults in non-uniform films.\nId. col. 28 ll. 57–64.\n This undesirable phenomenon is described elsewhere\nas the ripple effect. Id. col. 3 ll. 33–54. The ripple effect is\n“avoided by the present invention” “by applying heat to the\nbottom surface of the film with substantially no top air\nflow” or by using controlled microwaves, “again with sub-\nstantially no top air flow.” Id. col. 22 ll. 48–57, col. 28 ll.\n52–55 (“The wet film may be dried using controlled bottom\ndrying or controlled microwave drying, desirably in the ab-\nsence of external air currents or heat on the top (exposed)\nsurface of the film . . . .”). “If top air is employed, it is bal-\nanced with the bottom air drying to avoid non-uniformity\n. . . .” Id. col. 29 ll. 1–3.\n The specification also provides examples that demon-\nstrate the failure of conventional drying methods to achieve\nuniformity. Examples CH and CG examined whether un-\ndesirable particle aggregations occurred during conven-\ntional drying techniques as compared to “the uniform\ndrying process of the present invention.” Id. col. 52 ll. 27–\n28. In example CH, films were placed in an oven “on trays\nlined with furnace filters, which uniformly distribute heat.”\nId. col. 52 ll. 57–59. The resulting dried films were homog-\nenous with no particle aggregations. Id. col. 52 ll. 60–62.\nIn contrast, when films were dried in an oven “by conven-\ntional top and bottom drying means,” particle aggregations\noccurred. Id. col. 53 ll. 1–3, 8–10. Similarly, example CG\nreports that when films were “dried according to\n\n18 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\nconventional drying techniques, rather than via the uni-\nform drying process of the present invention,” the resulting\nfilms had particle aggregations. Id. col. 52 ll. 26–28, 39–\n40. And again, when films were instead dried “by the pro-\ncess of the present invention,” on trays lined with furnace\nfilters, the resulting films were homogenous and lacked\nparticle aggregations. Id. col. 52 ll. 43–50. Nowhere does\nthe specification describe making a uniform film with only\nconventional convection air drying from the top.\n Indivior emphasizes that the specification describes\nother factors that affect film uniformity. Indivior Reply Br.\n5–7. We agree that both the asserted claims and the spec-\nification identify other factors, such as viscosity, that may\ncontribute to uniformity. E.g., ’514 patent col. 73 ll. 53–55,\ncol. 74 ll. 3–5 (claim 62 containing both viscosity and drying\nlimitations); id. col. 23 ll. 14–20 (specification indicating\nlikewise). But the unequivocal disparagement of conven-\ntional top air drying detailed above demonstrates that\nother factors may not substitute for controlled drying of a\nwet cast film to achieve uniformity. As Indivior’s expert\nexplained, uniformity can be lost at any step of the manu-\nfacturing process, and once lost cannot be recovered. J.A.\n17209.\n Indivior nonetheless argues, first in its reply brief, that\n“polymer selection and the resulting viscosity may be used\nas an alternative to controlled drying.” Indivior Reply Br.\n7. This argument is inconsistent with Indivior’s own\nacknowledgement that uniformity can be lost throughout\nthe manufacturing process, and that neither the drying nor\nthe viscosity limitation of the asserted claims renders the\nother superfluous. Indivior Cross-Appellant Br. 47. Like-\nwise, the specification indicates that no individual factor\ncan guarantee uniformity of a wet cast film after drying.\n’514 patent col. 3 ll. 3–9 (“The long length of drying time\naids in promoting the aggregation of the active and other\nadjuvant, notwithstanding the use of viscosity modifiers.”\n(emphasis added)), col. 23 ll. 14–20 (“The present invention\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 19\n\n\n\nyields exceptionally uniform film products . . . . By avoid-\ning . . . excessive air in the mixing process, selecting poly-\nmers and solvents to provide a controllable viscosity and\nby drying the film in a rapid manner from the bottom up,\nsuch films result.” (emphasis added)). The lone statement\npurportedly to the contrary cited by Indivior, id. col. 4 ll.\n61–64 (“Alternatively, or in addition to controlling the dry-\ning the film, the polymer may be selected in order to pro-\nvide a viscosity that maintains the non-self-aggregating\nuniform heterogeneity.”), does not change our conclusion in\nlight of the specification’s unambiguous disparagement of\nconventional top air drying and its teachings as a whole.\n Even if the specification did disclaim certain drying\nmethods, Indivior contends that the disclaimer cannot ex-\ntend to zone drying. Indivior Cross-Appellant Br. 43. Zone\ndrying, according to Indivior, is a preferred embodiment\nthat can achieve uniform films and cannot be excluded\nfrom the claims.\n Indivior plainly waived this limited disclaimer argu-\nment by not raising it in the DRL case until post-trial brief-\ning. See, e.g., Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild\nSemiconductor Int’l, Inc., 904 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir.\n2018). However, it did raise a claim construction argument\nresembling the one on appeal in a footnote in the Alvogen\ncase, Alvogen J.A. 91990 n.20, which the district court re-\njected, Alvogen Decision, 298 F. Supp. 3d at 783.\n Even if we assume waiver does not apply, the specifi-\ncation’s discussion of zone drying does not qualify its dis-\nclaimer of conventional top air drying. Zone drying just\nrefers to using a drying tunnel with multiple “drying zones”\nalong the belt that may differ in various atmospheric con-\nditions. ’514 patent col. 32 ll. 38–45; id. figs. 35–36. Con-\nsistent with the rest of the specification, the patent\nnowhere suggests that zone drying achieves uniform films\nby using solely conventional top air drying. Rather, the pa-\ntent explains that zone drying may be supplemented with\n\n20 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\nadditional processes only “so long as controlled drying is\nmaintained in accordance with the invention.” Id. col. 33\nll. 1–4. And contrary to Indivior’s argument, the district\ncourt’s construction does not exclude any zone drying em-\nbodiments; it just excludes zone drying that uses solely con-\nventional convection air drying from the top, which is never\ndisclosed in the patent. We thus conclude that the disclo-\nsure of zone drying does not qualify the specification’s re-\npeated disparagement of solely top air drying.\n Consistent with our previous Indivior decision, we ul-\ntimately agree with the district court that the ’514 patent\nspecification unmistakably disclaimed conventional top air\ndrying as unable to produce the claimed uniform films. 6\nAccordingly, we affirm the court’s construction of the dry-\ning limitation and proceed to the second step of the in-\nfringement analysis, considering DRL’s and Alvogen’s\ndistinct ANDA processes separately.\n The district court found that DRL’s ANDA product does\nnot infringe the asserted claims of the ’514 patent. DRL\n’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *5–6. Although the\ncourt found that the drying process is controlled in certain\nways to assure film uniformity, it determined that the sole\nsource of heat in its drying process is hot air coming from\nabove the film and that any bottom drying that occurred\nwas incidental. Id. at *5. Consequently, the court found\nthat DRL does not infringe the drying limitation and thus\ndoes not infringe any of the asserted claims. Id. at *6.\n Indivior argues that the district court clearly erred in\nfinding that DRL’s ANDA product does not infringe the as-\nserted claims of the ’514 patent. Even under the court’s\n\n\n\n 6 Because we conclude that the specification dis-\nclaims conventional top air drying, we need not decide\nwhether the prosecution history further supports that dis-\nclaimer.\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 21\n\n\n\nconstruction, Indivior contends that DRL’s drying process\nis tightly controlled to maintain uniformity and uses bal-\nanced top air and bottom air drying.\n DRL responds that the district court did not clearly err\nin finding noninfringement because DRL’s drying process\nuses solely conventional top air drying.\n We agree with DRL that the district court did not\nclearly err in finding that DRL’s drying process does not\nmeet the drying limitation and thus does not infringe the\nasserted claims of the ’514 patent. Indivior does not seri-\nously dispute the essential predicates of the court’s nonin-\nfringement finding: that the sole source of heat in DRL’s\ndrying process is hot air from above the film, and that any\nbottom drying is merely incidental. See id. at *5 (“DRL’s\nuse of ‘bottom drying’ is essentially that the inside of the\noven simply gets hot . . . .”). Indivior thus has not shown\nclear error in the court’s holding that DRL employs conven-\ntional top air drying, which is insufficient to meet the dry-\ning limitation as properly construed. Accordingly, we\naffirm the court’s finding that DRL does not infringe the\nasserted claims of the ’514 patent.\n We next address Indivior’s appeal concerning Alvogen’s\nANDA product. The district court found that Alvogen’s\nANDA product does not infringe the ’514 patent because it\ndoes not meet the drying limitation. Alvogen Decision, 298\nF. Supp. 3d at 785. The court credited Alvogen’s expert’s\ntestimony that nozzles above the film supply all the hot air\nto dry the films, id. at 780–81, and found that any bottom\ndrying in Alvogen’s process is insubstantial, id. at 784.\n Indivior argues that the district court clearly erred in\nits noninfringement finding because even some insubstan-\ntial bottom drying brings Alvogen’s process within the\nreach of the asserted claims. We disagree. Indivior’s argu-\nment is largely repetitive of its claim construction argu-\nments, which we have rejected. The district court found\nthat even solely conventional top air drying can result in\n\n22 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\nsome incidental drying from the bottom, but that such in-\nsubstantial bottom drying does not infringe the asserted\nclaims as construed in light of the specification’s disclaimer\nof conventional top air drying. Id. (“Plaintiffs have not\ndemonstrated ‘substantial’ bottom drying such that Al-\nvogen’s dryer can be said to employ anything but ‘conven-\ntional convection air drying from the top.’”); accord DRL\n’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *5 (finding that inci-\ndental bottom drying did not infringe asserted claims). We\nconclude that this finding is not clearly erroneous or prem-\nised on an improper claim construction, and therefore af-\nfirm the district court’s judgment that Alvogen does not\ninfringe the asserted claims of the ’514 patent.\n 2. Watson’s Appeal\n We now consider Watson’s infringement appeal. Wat-\nson makes two arguments in its appeal from the district\ncourt’s judgment that Watson’s ANDA product infringes\nthe asserted claims of the ’514 patent. Watson Decision,\n2016 WL 3186659, at *21. First, Watson argues that the\ncourt erred in not granting Watson Rule 59 relief after the\namendment of its ANDA. Second, Watson argues that the\ncourt erred in finding that its ANDA product meets the vis-\ncosity limitation of the asserted claims. We address each\nargument in turn.\n Unlike DRL and Alvogen, Watson never requested con-\nstruction of the drying limitation when it litigated the ’514\npatent against Indivior, although it joined DRL in arguing\nfor the narrower construction of the similar limitation in\nthe ’497 patent. After the district court entered judgment\nof infringement, Watson amended its ANDA process to re-\nmove bottom heating sources. It then moved under Rule\n59 to reopen the court’s judgment.\n The district court denied Rule 59 relief. Rule 59 Deci-\nsion, 2017 WL 3820943, at *3. The court found no manifest\ninjustice in holding Watson to its decision not to request\nconstruction of the drying limitation. Id. at *2. According\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 23\n\n\n\nto the court, Watson knew of and in fact proposed the nar-\nrower construction of that limitation alongside DRL in its\ncase concerning the ’497 patent, yet never requested such\na construction in Watson’s own ’514 patent case. Id. The\ncourt observed that the broader construction of the drying\nlimitation potentially gave Watson a stronger invalidity\nposition at the expense of noninfringement. Id. Addition-\nally, the court decided that Watson was a sophisticated lit-\nigant that “should be bound by the litigation decisions [it]\nmake[s].” Id.\n On appeal, Watson argues that the district court\nabused its discretion in not reopening the judgment under\nRule 59. Indivior responds that the court acted well within\nits discretion in denying Watson such relief.\n We agree with Indivior that the district court did not\nabuse its discretion. While Rule 59 gives a court authority\nto alter or amend a judgment, that authority is exercised\nonly in limited circumstances, such as to prevent a mani-\nfest injustice. See United States ex rel. Schumann v. Astra-\nZeneca Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848–49 (3d Cir. 2014).\nWatson argues that it is manifestly unjust that different\ngeneric products will be treated differently depending on\nhow their cases were litigated. But it is neither unusual\nnor unjust for a party to be bound by its litigation decisions,\nparticularly here where Watson was fully aware of but did\nnot request the claim construction it now seeks. The dis-\ntrict court found that, while there is an interest in con-\nsistency across judgments, there is also a public interest in\nfinality and judicial efficiency, Rule 59 Decision, 2017 WL\n3820943, at *2, and we discern no abuse of discretion in the\ncourt’s balancing of those factors in this particular case.\nFurthermore, Watson acknowledges that it can still seek a\njudgment of noninfringement based on the amended ANDA\nprocess even if it fails to secure Rule 59 relief. Under these\ncircumstances, we conclude that the court acted within its\ndiscretion in declining to reopen its judgment based on a\n\n24 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\nclaim construction argument that Watson knew of yet\nfailed to raise.\n Watson separately argues that the district court clearly\nerred in finding that Watson’s ANDA product meets the\nviscosity limitation of the ’514 patent claims. The court\nfound that the viscosity range of Watson’s product was\nwithin the preferred range disclosed in the ’514 patent and\nthus was “sufficient to aid” in preventing aggregation of the\nactive, as required by the viscosity limitation. Watson De-\ncision, 2016 WL 3186659, at *20.\n Watson argues that Indivior failed to show that viscos-\nity contributes to the uniformity of Watson’s films and that\nthe district court improperly placed the burden on Watson\nto prove noninfringement. Further, Watson emphasizes\nthe breadth of the preferred viscosity range and that no\nparticular viscosity value can guarantee uniformity.\n Indivior responds that the district court did not clearly\nerr in finding that Watson’s ANDA product meets the vis-\ncosity limitation because the ANDA requires a viscosity\nsquarely within the most preferred range identified in the\n’514 patent.\n We agree with Indivior and conclude that the district\ncourt did not clearly err in finding infringement. The vis-\ncosity limitation requires that the viscosity of the matrix\nbe “sufficient to aid” in maintaining uniformity. ’514 pa-\ntent col. 73 ll. 53–55. As both parties agree, viscosity is one\nfactor among several identified in the ’514 patent that con-\ntributes to uniformity. E.g., id. col. 23 ll. 14–20. Specifi-\ncally, the patent explains that “[v]iscosity is one property\nof a liquid that controls the stability of the active” and that\nthe viscosity of the matrix will “generally” be 400–100,000\ncentipoise, “preferably” be 800–60,000 centipoise, and\n“most preferably” be 1,000–40,000 centipoise. Id. col. 11 ll.\n24–29. Watson’s ANDA specifies a viscosity of 5,800–\n17,500 centipoise, J.A. 80020, 12578, which is, as the court\ncorrectly found, plainly encompassed by the most preferred\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 25\n\n\n\nrange disclosed in the ’514 patent. Further, the court did\nnot clearly err in finding that a film may satisfy the viscos-\nity limitation even if other factors than viscosity contribute\nto film uniformity. Watson Decision, 2016 WL 3186659, at\n*20. As previously discussed, the asserted claims them-\nselves identify drying as an additional factor affecting uni-\nformity. Since Watson demonstrates no clear error in the\ncourt’s infringement judgment, we affirm its finding that\nWatson’s ANDA product infringes the ’514 patent.\n B. Validity of the ’514 Patent\n Watson, Teva, and DRL raise two challenges to the va-\nlidity of the ’514 patent. Watson and Teva appeal from the\ncourt’s judgment that the asserted claims of the ’514 patent\nare not invalid as indefinite. DRL appeals from the court’s\njudgment that the claims have not been shown to be invalid\nas obvious. We consider the challenges separately.\n 1. Indefiniteness\n A patent must “conclude with one or more claims par-\nticularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject\nmatter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35\nU.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (2006). 7 Because of the statute’s demand\nfor particularity in claiming, “a patent is invalid for indefi-\nniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification de-\nlineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to\ninform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art\nabout the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig\nInstruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014).\n We review a district court’s indefiniteness judgment as\nwe do its claim construction, Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns\n\n\n\n 7 Because the application of the ’514 patent was filed\nbefore March 16, 2013, the pre-Leahy-Smith America In-\nvents Act version of § 112 applies. See Pub. L. No. 112-29,\n125 Stat. 284 (2011).\n\n26 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\nInt’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2017), which in\nthis case is de novo.\n At the district court, the parties’ indefiniteness dis-\npute focused on claim 62’s recitation of a “cast film compris-\ning a flowable water-soluble or water swellable film-\nforming matrix.” ’514 patent col. 73 ll. 49–50. Watson al-\nleged that this limitation is indefinite because a cast film\nin its final dosage form is not flowable, and the claim thus\nrequired a physical impossibility. While the court agreed\nthat the final cast film could not be flowable, it reasoned\nthat a product claim may recite elements “in the state in\nwhich they exist during manufacture, before the final prod-\nuct exists.” Watson Decision, 2016 WL 3186659, at *15–16.\nAnd because the intrinsic evidence made clear that the cast\nfilm was made from a matrix that was flowable only before\ndrying, the court concluded that the defendants failed to\nprove that the claims were indefinite. Id. at *16.\n On appeal, Watson and Teva argue that the claims re-\ncite a physical impossibility—a flowable yet solid cast\nfilm—and are therefore indefinite. Indivior responds that\nthe claims, understood in light of the specification, clearly\nrecite a matrix that is flowable only before drying.\n We agree with Indivior that the claim is not indefinite.\nThe only sensible reading of the claim is that the cast film\nis made from a matrix that is flowable before drying and is\nnot simultaneously dry and flowable. For example, the ma-\ntrix as claimed has a viscosity, which is a property of fluids,\nnot solids. And the matrix is “capable of being dried,”\nwhich would be redundant if the matrix is already dried.\nThe specification similarly explains that the wet matrix is\n“formed into a film . . . and then dried.” ’514 patent col. 25\nll. 27–28. The claims and specification thus make quite\nclear that the flowable matrix is first flowable and then\ndried.\n Having no support in the patent itself, Watson and\nTeva essentially rest on the argument that a product claim\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 27\n\n\n\n“comprising” certain elements must contain those elements\nsimultaneously. But the district court properly rejected\nthis position based on our precedent. For example, in\nGemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371,\n1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the patentee claimed a refrigera-\ntor shelf “comprising” a lower wall having a certain resili-\nence. Since the specification made clear that the resilience\nonly referred to resilience during assembly, we held that\nthe lower wall only required that property during assem-\nbly. Id. at 1378–79, 1380–81. The ’514 patent likewise\nmakes clear that the matrix is flowable only at a certain\ntime—before drying. The word “comprising” in isolation\ndoes not sustain Watson and Teva’s nonsensical interpre-\ntation of a flowable dried film that is contrary to both the\nspecification and the claim language. We thus affirm the\ndistrict court’s judgment that the ’514 patent has not been\nshown to be invalid as indefinite.\n 2. Obviousness\n We now consider DRL’s appeal from the district court’s\njudgment of nonobviousness. Obviousness is a question of\nlaw based on underlying facts, including the scope and con-\ntent of the prior art, differences between the prior art and\nthe claims at issue, the level of ordinary skill, and relevant\nevidence of secondary considerations. Graham v. John\nDeere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). A patent\nis presumed valid, and overcoming that presumption at the\ndistrict court requires clear and convincing evidence. Mi-\ncrosoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011); Fer-\nring B.V. v. Watson Labs., Inc.-Fla., 764 F.3d 1401, 1407\n(Fed. Cir. 2014).\n In its analysis of the Graham factors, the district court\nfound that a person of ordinary skill would principally have\na background in pharmaceutical science or chemistry but\n“would also be a member of a team, which would include\nan engineer or scientist with one to three years of relevant\nexperience manufacturing and optimizing various types of\n\n28 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\nfilm products using coating and drying processes.” DRL\n’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *15. In reaching this\ndetermination, the court found some merit both in In-\ndivior’s argument that the pharmaceutical film field was\nnascent around the time of invention and in DRL’s argu-\nment that a person of ordinary skill would have some\nknowledge relating to coating and drying films. Id.\n Turning to the prior art, the district court generally\nfound that there was limited use of top air convection dry-\ners in the context of pharmaceutical films at the time of\ninvention. Id. at *16. The court also observed that there\nwere differences between pharmaceutical and non-phar-\nmaceutical films, citing in particular the more demanding\nFDA requirements for drug content uniformity in pharma-\nceuticals. Id.\n DRL asserted that the claims were obvious over U.S.\nPatents 4,849,246 (“Schmidt”), 6,552,024 (“Chen”), and\n5,881,476 (“Strobush”). The district court made findings on\nthe teachings of the prior art, which we summarize below.\n Schmidt disclosed processes for making pharmaceuti-\ncal films. Schmidt’s films were made through a roll-coating\nprocess with temperature-controlled rollers and a drying\ntunnel that was controllable in sections. DRL ’514 Deci-\nsion, 2017 WL 3837312, at *16. Schmidt also disclosed that\nthere was a regulatory requirement for drug content uni-\nformity and that its processes yielded films with a repro-\nducible weight that varied within 10%. Id. at *17.\nHowever, the district court found that Schmidt did not ex-\namine the uniformity of the film after drying, crediting In-\ndivior’s expert’s testimony. Id.\n Chen taught pharmaceutical films made by a casting\nprocess and a drying oven that included top air drying noz-\nzles and that had controllable temperature and air speed.\nId. Chen further discussed a human pharmacokinetic\nstudy conducted with its films. Id. at *18.\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 29\n\n\n\n Strobush disclosed a method for drying photographic\nand other non-pharmaceutical films without introducing a\nsurface defect called “mottle.” Id. at *16. As Strobush was\nnot directed to pharmaceutical films, it did not address\ndrug content uniformity. Id.\n The key dispute between the parties was whether the\nprior art’s teachings would motivate a skilled artisan to\nmake a uniform pharmaceutical film according to the\nclaimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.\nThe district court found that Schmidt did not directly\nmeasure drug content uniformity and only indirectly meas-\nured uniformity before drying. Id. at *17. Further, the\ncourt cited a subsequent peer-reviewed article indicating\nthat Schmidt’s process did not produce uniform films. Id.\nThe court thus found that Schmidt did not disclose how to\nachieve drug content uniformity. Id.\n Turning to Chen, the district court found that the ref-\nerence disclosed a human study using its films, which im-\nplicitly suggested that the films had uniform drug content.\nId. at *18. However, the court noted that Chen did not dis-\nclose that its films had the requisite uniformity and that\nthe defendants’ expert failed to produce uniform films us-\ning Chen’s protocol. Id. In light of this conflicting evidence,\nthe court found that DRL failed to prove that Chen\nachieved drug content uniformity. Id.\n Given the nascent status of pharmaceutical films at the\ntime of invention and the limited knowledge of drying tech-\nniques, the district court additionally found that a person\nof ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine\nthe prior art to achieve uniformity. Id. at *18. Moreover,\nthe court found that a skilled artisan would not have been\nmotivated to combine Schmidt and Chen with the tech-\nniques in Strobush because Strobush did not address phar-\nmaceutical films or film uniformity, but rather the surface\ndefect called mottle. Id.\n\n30 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\n Finally, the district court found that secondary consid-\nerations supported nonobviousness. The court considered\nevidence that obtaining pharmaceutical film content uni-\nformity was a long-felt need yet difficult to achieve, and the\ncourt gave some credit to Aquestive’s work related to the\n’514 patent in solving that need. Id. at *19. That credit\nwas supported by several pieces of evidence. First, it was\nundisputed that Aquestive was the first to receive FDA ap-\nproval for a pharmaceutical film. Id. Second, several pa-\npers cited the inventors’ work for demonstrating the value\nand viability of pharmaceutical films. Id. Third, DRL itself\nprepared an internal memorandum recognizing an\nAquestive patent application that “yields uniform distribu-\ntion of active,” “the advantageous factor which was not ap-\npreciated by the prior arts.” Id. The court considered that\nthe praise did not specifically address the patents in suit\nand sometimes credited others as well, but the court none-\ntheless gave the evidence some weight because it referred\nto the claimed technology. Id. at *20.\n Considering all the evidence, the district court held\nthat DRL failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence\nthat the asserted claims of the ’514 patent would have been\nobvious. Id..\n On appeal, DRL challenges several of the district\ncourt’s factual findings. First, DRL argues that the court\nclearly erred in finding the level of ordinary skill. Second,\nDRL alleges that the court clearly erred in finding that\nSchmidt and Chen do not teach drug content uniformity.\nThird, DRL argues that the court clearly erred in dismiss-\ning the teachings of Strobush. DRL also contends that sec-\nondary considerations do not compel nonobviousness.\n Indivior responds that the district court did not clearly\nerr in its factual findings and that secondary considera-\ntions support nonobviousness.\n We agree with Indivior that the district court did not\nclearly err in its factual findings or in its ultimate\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 31\n\n\n\njudgment of nonobviousness. First, we see no clear error\nin the court adopting a compromise measure of the level of\nordinary skill. Although the court found that the field of\npharmaceutical films was just emerging at the time of in-\nvention, it also found “merit to [DRL’s] argument that one\nof ordinary skill would have a degree of access to some of\nthe body of prior-art knowledge relating to coating and dry-\ning.” Id. at *15. Consequently, the court found that a per-\nson of ordinary skill would be on a team with an engineer\nor scientist with experience in manufacturing films. Id.\nDRL argues that the court clearly erred in settling on the\nparticular amount of experience: 1–3 years according to\nthe court, while DRL preferred 5–10 years. For its part,\nIndivior’s expert testified that a skilled artisan would have\na lower amount of experience with films since the pharma-\nceutical film field was young and that, in his nearly 40\nyears of experience, he had never seen a team assembled\nwith the experience suggested by DRL. On this record, we\nconclude that DRL’s nitpicking over the experience level of\nthe skilled artisan fails to demonstrate clear error.\n Next, we conclude that the district court did not clearly\nerr in finding that Schmidt did not disclose uniform dried\nfilms according to the claimed invention. As properly con-\nstrued, claim 62 requires a specific type of drying, i.e., with-\nout solely top air drying, to achieve a specific uniformity\n“subsequent to casting and drying.” Schmidt disclosed nei-\nther limitation. Indeed, DRL does not dispute that\nSchmidt only disclosed a uniform wet film. The court thus\ndid not clearly err in relying on Indivior’s expert’s testi-\nmony that since film uniformity could be lost at the drying\nstep, a uniform wet film does not disclose the claimed uni-\nform dried films.\n We conclude likewise with respect to Chen. While the\nhuman study disclosed in Chen implicitly suggested that\nthe films were uniform, Chen’s actual discussion of uni-\nformity involved films lacking an active compound, J.A.\n70211–12, and the defendants’ expert failed to produce\n\n32 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\nuniform films using Chen’s method, DRL ’514 Decision,\n2017 WL 3837312, at *17–18. The district court did not\nclearly err in its weighing of this evidence, some of which\nsupported DRL’s position and some of which went against\nit.\n Having found that neither Schmidt nor Chen taught\nthe post-drying uniform films as claimed in the ’514 patent,\nthe district court also found that a skilled artisan would\nnot have been motivated to modify either reference in light\nof Strobush with a reasonable expectation of success. Id.\nat *18–19. DRL argues that this was also clear error. We\ndisagree. Strobush did not address the uniformity of either\npharmaceutical films or non-pharmaceutical films, but ra-\nther a surface defect called mottle. Mottle may relate to\nuniformity, but they are different properties. The court\ncredited Indivior’s expert, who testified that lack of mottle\nwould not imply that the film was uniform, id. at *18, and\nDRL points to no clear error in that finding. Further, while\nDRL emphasizes that Strobush taught bottom-drying, it\ndoes not point us to any recognition in Strobush that bot-\ntom-drying had any particularly advantageous features.\nWhile the motivation of the skilled artisan need not be the\nsame as that of the patentee, KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,\n550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007), DRL’s proffered motivation is too\ntenuous. We conclude that the district court did not clearly\nerr in finding that a skilled artisan would not have been\nmotivated to make a bottom-dried uniform pharmaceutical\nfilm based on a teaching that was not emphasized in any\nmeaningful way from a reference in a different field ad-\ndressing a different problem.\n That finding is further supported by the court’s deter-\nmination that a skilled artisan would not have had a rea-\nsonable expectation of success. DRL ’514 Decision, 2017\nWL 3837312, at *19. In contrast to a “finite number of\nidentified, predictable solutions,” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, the\ncourt found that multiple factors throughout the manufac-\nturing process contribute to the uniformity of\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 33\n\n\n\npharmaceutical films, that adjusting the various factors\nwould have been unintuitive, and that the field was still\nemergent at the time of invention. DRL ’514 Decision, 2017\nWL 3837312, at *19. We also see no clear error in those\nfindings.\n We last consider DRL’s challenge to the district court’s\nevaluation of the evidence of secondary considerations.\n“[E]vidence of secondary considerations may often be the\nmost probative and cogent evidence in the record. It may\noften establish that an invention appearing to have been\nobvious in light of the prior art was not.” Stratoflex, Inc. v.\nAeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1983).\nAquestive was the first to receive FDA approval for a phar-\nmaceutical film and received praise for its work in achiev-\ning uniform films, including by DRL itself. Having\nconsidered DRL’s arguments, we conclude that the court\ndid not clearly err in giving some weight to Indivior’s evi-\ndence.\n Because we conclude that DRL has not shown clear er-\nror in the court’s findings, we affirm the district court’s\njudgment that the asserted claims of the ’514 patent, as\nproperly construed, would not have been obvious. As DRL\nhas not argued the ’497 patent separately, we affirm the\ncourt’s nonobviousness judgment with respect to that pa-\ntent as well.\n C. Infringement of the ’150 Patent\n We turn to the parties’ appeals concerning the ’150 pa-\ntent, beginning with Indivior’s appeal from the district\ncourt’s judgment that DRL does not infringe the asserted\nclaims of the ’150 patent. DRL ’150 Decision, 2017 WL\n3782782, at *1, *5. Claim 1 recites that the film includes a\nhydrophilic cellulosic polymer (“HCP”). DRL substituted\npolyvinyl pyrrolidone (“PVP”) for HCP in its ANDA prod-\nuct. Id. at *3. Indivior argued that DRL’s product in-\nfringed under the doctrine of equivalents.\n\n34 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\n The district court held that DRL’s product does not in-\nfringe under the doctrine of equivalents because the ’150\npatent disclosed PVP as an alternative to HCP but did not\nclaim it, thereby dedicating it to the public. Id. at *4–5.\n Indivior argues that the district court erred in conclud-\ning that the disclosure-dedication rule applied. DRL disa-\ngrees and contends that the district court’s analysis and\njudgment were correct.\n We agree with DRL that the disclosure-dedication rule\napplies here and that the district court correctly found that\nDRL’s product does not infringe under the doctrine of\nequivalents. When a patentee discloses subject matter but\ndoes not claim it, the patentee dedicates the unclaimed\nsubject matter to the public and cannot recapture it\nthrough the doctrine of equivalents. Johnson & Johnston\nAssocs. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1054 (Fed. Cir.\n2002) (en banc). The rule descends from the essential no-\ntice function of claims. As the Supreme Court long ago ex-\nplained, “[t]he public is notified and informed, by the most\nsolemn act on the part of the patentee, that his claim to\ninvention is for such and such an element or combination,\nand for nothing more.” Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U.S. 354,\n361 (1884).\n Here, the patentee claimed a film comprising a polymer\ncomponent made up of PEO and HCP but disclosed “useful\nwater[-]soluble polymers,” including both HCP and other\npolymers such as PVP. ’150 patent col. 15 ll. 44–60. The\nspecification further describes examples of successful films\nusing polymeric blends of PEO and PVP without HCP. Id.\ncol. 51 l. 49–col. 52 l. 36 (example EA); see also id. col. 54 l.\n51–col. 55 l. 11 (examples EI, EJ). These disclosures teach\nthat PVP, an unclaimed embodiment, is an alternative to\nHCP and thus is dedicated to the public and cannot be re-\ncaptured through the doctrine of equivalents. See Johnson\n& Johnston, 285 F.3d at 1054. We affirm the district\ncourt’s judgment that DRL’s ANDA product, which\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 35\n\n\n\ncontains PVP but not HCP, does not infringe the asserted\nclaims of the ’150 patent.\n D. Validity of ’150 Patent\n DRL alleges that the ’150 patent is invalid as obvious.\nIts challenge to the district court’s judgment of nonobvious-\nness focuses solely on whether the ’150 patent may\nproperly claim priority from the earlier ’902 application.\nThe priority question turns on whether the ’902 application\nprovides an adequate written description of the claims of\nthe ’150 patent. See Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107\nF.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Under 35 U.S.C.\n§ 112, “[t]he specification shall contain a written descrip-\ntion of the invention.” The test for adequate written de-\nscription “is whether the disclosure of the application relied\nupon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the\ninventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of\nthe filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598\nF.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The disclosure\nmust demonstrate that the patentee truly invented the\nsubject matter encompassed by the claims. Whether a\nclaim satisfies the written description requirement is a\nquestion of fact. Id..\n As relevant to this issue, claim 1 of the ’150 patent re-\ncites a pharmaceutical film with: (1) “at least one water-\nsoluble polymer component consisting of [PEO] in combi-\nnation with a[n] [HCP]”; wherein (2) “the water-soluble\npolymer component comprises greater than 75% [PEO] and\nup to 25% [HCP]”; (3) the PEO comprises at least one L-\nPEO and at least one H-PEO; and (4) the L-PEO “com-\nprises about 60% or more in the polymer component.” ’150\npatent col. 57 ll. 35–54.\n The district court held that the ’150 patent properly\nclaimed priority from the ’902 application. In making that\ndetermination, the court relied primarily on the following\npassage from the ’902 application:\n\n36 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\n For instance, certain film properties, such as fast\n dissolution rates and high tear resistance, may be\n attained by combining small amounts of high mo-\n lecular weight PEOs with larger amounts of lower\n molecular weight PE[O]s. Desirably, such composi-\n tions contain about 60% or greater levels of the\n lower molecular weight PEO in the PEO-blend pol-\n ymer component.\n To balance the properties of adhesion prevention,\n fast dissolution rate, and good tear resistance, de-\n sirable film compositions may include about 50% to\n 75% low molecular weight PEO, optionally com-\n bined with a small amount of a high molecular\n weight PEO, with the remainder of the polymer\n component containing a hydrophilic cellulosic poly-\n mer (HPC or HPMC).\nDRL ’150 Decision, 2017 WL 3782782, at *6 (emphases\nadded) (quoting J.A. 70035). The court interpreted the\nterm “polymer component” to refer to all polymers in the\nformulation, including L-PEO, H-PEO, and any HCP. Id.\nTogether with example formulations listed in the ’902 ap-\nplication, the court found that this passage provided ade-\nquate support for the ’150 patent’s priority claim. Id. at *6.\n On appeal, DRL argues that the district court clearly\nerred in finding that the ’902 application provided written\ndescription support for the asserted claims of the ’150 pa-\ntent. According to DRL, the ’902 application fails to de-\nscribe the claimed composition with the specificity of the\n’150 patent claims.\n Indivior responds that the ’902 application reasonably\nconveys to a skilled artisan that the inventor invented and\ndisclosed the claimed films as of the application’s filing\ndate.\n We agree with Indivior that the district court did not\nclearly err in finding that the ’902 application provides\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 37\n\n\n\nadequate written description support for the asserted\nclaims of the ’150 patent. To obtain certain desirable film\nproperties, the ’902 application recommends that films\nshould combine small amounts of H-PEO with larger\namounts of L-PEO, and desirably the films should have at\nleast 60% L-PEO “in the PEO-blend polymer component.”\nJ.A. 70035. Considering a broader set of properties, the\napplication prescribes 50–75% L-PEO with the balance of\nthe “polymer component” being H-PEO and HCP. Id. The\napplication also discloses multiple example formulations\nwith varying levels of L-PEO, H-PEO, and HCP. The court\ndid not clearly err in finding that these disclosures would\nconvey to a skilled artisan the claimed films with a polymer\ncomponent containing at least 75% PEO, at least 60% L-\nPEO, some H-PEO, and up to 25% HCP.\n Addressing only the examples, DRL argues that no em-\nbodiment disclosed in the ’902 application has the precise\ncombination of L-PEO, H-PEO, and HCP claimed in the\n’150 patent. It analogizes this case to Purdue Pharma L.P.\nv. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000). There, we\nconsidered a claim to a formulation characterized by a cer-\ntain sustained release ratio. Id. at 1322–23. However, the\nspecification never indicated that the ratio was “an im-\nportant defining quality of the formulation, nor d[id] the\ndisclosure even motivate one to calculate the ratio.” Id. at\n1327. By claiming a characteristic of the formulation that\nwas “not discussed even in passing in the disclosure,” the\npatentee ran afoul of the written description requirement,\nand we thus affirmed the district court’s judgment of inva-\nlidity. Id. at 1327, 1329. Here, however, the ’902 applica-\ntion does direct a skilled artisan to the claimed polymer\ncomponent. Consistent with the ’150 patent claims, the ap-\nplication discloses that a polymer component with 60% L-\nPEO has desirable properties and that the remainder of the\ncomponent may include H-PEO and HCP. The district\ncourt did not clearly err in finding that these disclosures\nsupported the ’150 patent claims.\n\n38 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\n DRL suggests that the ’902 application does not dis-\nclose that the polymer component comprises 60% L-PEO\nbecause the application in the relevant sentence refers only\nto the “PEO-blend polymer component” comprising 60% L-\nPEO. DRL Appellant Br. 56–57 (emphasis added). DRL\nindicates that the “PEO-blend polymer component” in-\ncludes only PEO and not an HCP. But it provides no evi-\ndence or reasoning in support of that interpretation, and\nthe application’s disclosure is to the contrary. For each ex-\nample formulation including an HCP, percentages for L-\nPEO and H-PEO are shown for the entire polymer compo-\nnent, and never for just the PEO part. J.A. 70085. We\nthink “PEO-blend polymer component” simply refers to a\npolymer component containing a PEO blend and is not ex-\nclusive of other ingredients. Accordingly, we conclude that\nthe district court did not clearly err in interpreting “poly-\nmer component” to consistently include all the polymers in\nthe formulation.\n In sum, the ’902 application discloses films with vary-\ning amounts of L-PEO, H-PEO, and HCP, describes films\nwith 60% L-PEO as having desirable properties, and states\nthat the remainder of the polymer component apart from\nL-PEO may include H-PEO and HCP. This disclosure of\nthe ’902 application reasonably conveyed to a skilled arti-\nsan the films claimed in the ’150 patent. The specification\nneed not recite the claimed invention in haec verba. Ariad,\n598 F.3d at 1352. We affirm the district court’s holding\nthat the ’150 patent is entitled to the priority date of the\n’902 application. As DRL makes no other challenge to the\ncourt’s judgment of nonobviousness, we affirm that holding\nas well.\n E. Validity of ’832 Patent\n We last address Indivior’s challenge to the district\ncourt’s judgment that claims 15–19 are invalid as obvious.\nWatson Decision, 2016 WL 3186659, at *11. In a parallel\ninter partes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 39\n\n\n\nBoard held claims 15–19 unpatentable as anticipated and\nobvious, BioDelivery, 2015 WL 4045328, at *16, which we\naffirmed, 667 F. App’x 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Indivior argues\nthat the Board’s unpatentability decision and our subse-\nquent affirmance moot the parties’ dispute over the validity\nof claims 15–19 and requests vacatur of the district court’s\njudgment of invalidity. No party raises any objection to va-\ncatur.\n Indivior argues that, “in general, when a claim is can-\ncelled, the patentee loses any cause of action based on that\nclaim, and any pending litigation in which the claims are\nasserted becomes moot.” Indivior Cross-Appellant Br. 89\n(quoting Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 721 F.3d\n1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). We agree that the Board’s\ndecision and our affirmance mooted any dispute over the\ndistrict court’s decision regarding claims 15–19 of the ’832\npatent. We also agree that vacatur is proper because moot-\nness was not caused by Indivior’s voluntary action. See\nU.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S.\n18, 24–25 (1994). Indeed, Indivior opposed the inter partes\nreview, appealed the decision, and sought review en banc.\nNo party contends on appeal that vacatur would be inap-\npropriate in these circumstances.\n CONCLUSION\n We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments\nbut find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we\naffirm the district court’s judgments that DRL and Alvogen\ndo not infringe the ’514 patent, that Watson does infringe\nthe ’514 patent, and that Watson, Teva, and DRL failed to\nprove that the ’514 patent is invalid. We likewise affirm\nthe court’s judgment that DRL does not infringe the ’150\npatent, and that DRL failed to prove that the ’150 patent is\ninvalid. We vacate the court’s decision that claims 15–19\nof the ’832 patent are invalid as obvious.\n AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART\n\n40 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\n COSTS\n No costs.\n\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 41\n\n\n\n APPENDIX\n’514 Patent Claim 62\n 62. A drug delivery composition comprising:\n (i) a cast film comprising a flowable water-soluble\n or water swellable film-forming matrix comprising\n one or more substantially water soluble or water\n swellable polymers; and a desired amount of at\n least one active;\n wherein said matrix has a viscosity sufficient to aid\n in substantially maintaining non-self-aggregating\n uniformity of the active in the matrix;\n (ii) a particulate active substantially uniformly sta-\n tioned in the matrix; and\n (iii) a taste-masking agent selected from the group\n consisting of flavors, sweeteners, flavor enhancers,\n and combinations thereof to provide taste-masking\n of the active;\n wherein the particulate active has a particle size of\n 200 microns or less and said flowable water-soluble\n or water swellable film-forming matrix is capable\n of being dried without loss of substantial uniformity\n in the stationing of said particulate active therein;\n and\n wherein the uniformity subsequent to casting and\n drying of the matrix is measured by substantially\n equally sized individual unit doses which do not\n vary by more than 10% of said desired amount of\n said at least one active.\n’514 patent col. 73 l. 48–col. 74 l. 9 (emphasis added).\n’150 Patent Claim 1\n 1. A mucosally-adhesive water-soluble film product\n comprising:\n\n42 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\n an analgesic opiate pharmaceutical active; and\n at least one water-soluble polymer component con-\n sisting of polyethylene oxide in combination with a\n hydrophilic cellulosic polymer;\n wherein:\n the water-soluble polymer component comprises\n greater than 75% polyethylene oxide and up to 25%\n hydrophilic cellulosic polymer;\n the polyethylene oxide comprises one or more low\n molecular weight polyethylene oxides and one or\n more higher molecular weight polyethylene oxides,\n the molecular weight of the low molecular weight\n polyethylene oxide being in the range 100,000 to\n 300,000 and the molecular weight of the higher mo-\n lecular weight polyethylene oxide being in the\n range 600,000 to 900,000; and\n the polyethylene oxide of low molecular weight\n comprises about 60% or more in the polymer com-\n ponent.\n’150 patent col. 57 ll. 37–54.\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n INDIVIOR INC., FKA RECKITT BENCKISER\n PHARMACEUTICALS INC., INDIVIOR UK\nLIMITED, FKA RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,\n AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC., FKA\n MONOSOL RX, LLC,\n Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants\n\n v.\n\nDR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A., DR. REDDY'S\nLABORATORIES INC., WATSON LABORATORIES\n INC., ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC., TEVA\n PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,\n Defendants-Appellants\n\n PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., INTELGENX\n TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,\n Defendants\n ______________________\n\n2017-2587, 2018-1010, 2018-1058, 2018-1062, 2018-1114,\n 2018-1115, 2018-1176, 2018-1177\n ______________________\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\nDistrict of Delaware in Nos. 1:13-cv-01674-RGA, 1:14-cv-\n00422-RGA, 1:14-cv-01451-RGA, 1:14-cv-01574-RGA, 1:16-\ncv-00178-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.\n\n -------------------------------------------------------------\n\n2 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\n\n\n\n\n INDIVIOR INC., FKA RECKITT BENCKISER\n PHARMACEUTICALS INC., INDIVIOR UK\nLIMITED, FKA RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,\n AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\n\n v.\n\n ALVOGEN PINE BROOK, LLC,\n Defendant-Cross-Appellant\n ______________________\n\n 2018-1949, 2018-2045\n ______________________\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\nDistrict of Delaware in Nos. 1:15-cv-00477-RGA, 1:15-cv-\n01016-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.\n ______________________\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: INDIVIOR INC., Fka Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., Indivior UK Limited, Fka RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Fka MonoSol Rx, LLC, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc., Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Defendants-Appellants Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Intelgenx Technologies Corp., Defendants Indivior Inc., Fka Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., Indivior UK Limited, Fka RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Alvogen Pine Brook, LLC, Defendant-Cross-Appellant\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n INDIVIOR INC., FKA RECKITT BENCKISER\\n PHARMACEUTICALS INC., INDIVIOR UK\\nLIMITED, FKA RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,\\n AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC., FKA\\n MONOSOL RX, LLC,\\n Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\nDR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A., DR. REDDY'S\\nLABORATORIES INC., WATSON LABORATORIES\\n INC., ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC., TEVA\\n PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,\\n Defendants-Appellants\\n\\n PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., INTELGENX\\n TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,\\n Defendants\\n ______________________\\n\\n2017-2587, 2018-1010, 2018-1058, 2018-1062, 2018-1114,\\n 2018-1115, 2018-1176, 2018-1177\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Delaware in Nos. 1:13-cv-01674-RGA, 1:14-cv-\\n00422-RGA, 1:14-cv-01451-RGA, 1:14-cv-01574-RGA, 1:16-\\ncv-00178-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.\\n\\n -------------------------------------------------------------\\n\\n2 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n INDIVIOR INC., FKA RECKITT BENCKISER\\n PHARMACEUTICALS INC., INDIVIOR UK\\nLIMITED, FKA RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,\\n AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n ALVOGEN PINE BROOK, LLC,\\n Defendant-Cross-Appellant\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1949, 2018-2045\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Delaware in Nos. 1:15-cv-00477-RGA, 1:15-cv-\\n01016-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 12, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n JEFFREY B. ELIKAN, Covington & Burling LLP, Wash-\\nington, DC, argued for all plaintiffs-cross-appellants in\\n2017-2587 and for all plaintiffs-appellants in 2018-1949.\\nIndivior Inc., Indivior UK Limited also represented by\\nERICA NICOLE ANDERSEN, BETH S. BRINKMANN, ROBERT\\nJASON FOWLER, MATTHEW AARON KUDZIN, JEFFREY\\nHOWARD LERNER, ASHLEY KWON; DUSTIN B. WEEKS, Trout-\\nman Sanders LLP, Atlanta, GA; DANIEL LADOW, JAMES M.\\nBOLLINGER, MAGNUS ESSUNGER, KATHERINE HARIHAR,\\nTIMOTHY P. HEATON, GERALD EAMES PORTER, New York,\\nNY; CHARANJIT BRAHMA, San Francisco, CA.\\n\\n JAMES FRANCIS HIBEY, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Wash-\\nington, DC, for plaintiff-cross-appellant Aquestive\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 3\\n\\n\\n\\nTherapeutics, Inc. in 2017-2587 and for plaintiff-appellant\\nAquestive Therapeutics, Inc. in 2018-1949. Also repre-\\nsented by JAMIE LUCIA, San Francisco, CA.\\n\\n KEVIN PAUL MARTIN, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston,\\nMA, argued for defendants-appellants Dr. Reddy's Labora-\\ntories, S.A., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc. in 2017-2587.\\nAlso represented by ELAINE BLAIS, EDWINA CLARKE,\\nROBERT FREDERICKSON, III, ALEXANDRA LU; ROBERT V.\\nCERWINSKI, IRA J. LEVY, New York, NY.\\n\\n STEPHEN R. SMEREK, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los An-\\ngeles, CA, argued for defendants-appellants Watson Labor-\\natories Inc., Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Teva\\nPharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in 2017-2587. Also represented\\nby JASON CRAIG HAMILTON; GEORGE C. LOMBARDI, MICHAEL\\nKEENAN NUTTER, Chicago, IL; GEOFFREY P. EATON, Wash-\\nington, DC.\\n\\n STEVEN H. SKLAR, Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd., Chicago,\\nIL, argued for defendant-cross-appellant in 2018-1949.\\nAlso represented by DAVID AIRAN, GREGORY BAYS, NICOLE\\nKOPINSKI, JAMES SANNER.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.\\n Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge LOURIE.\\n Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge MAYER.\\nLOURIE, Circuit Judge.\\n Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Labor-\\natories Inc. (collectively, “DRL”); Watson Laboratories Inc.\\nand Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (collectively, “Watson”);\\nand Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) appeal from\\nseveral decisions of the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Delaware pertaining to U.S. Patents 8,603,514\\n(the “’514 patent”), 8,900,497 (the “’497 patent”), and\\n\\n4 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n8,017,150 (the “’150 patent”). Specifically, DRL appeals\\nfrom two decisions holding the asserted claims of the ’514,\\n’497, and ’150 patents not invalid as obvious. Reckitt\\nBenckiser Pharm. Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A., Nos. 14-\\n1451-RGA, 14-1573-RGA, 14-1574-RGA, 2017 WL 3837312\\n(D. Del. Aug. 31, 2017) (“DRL ’514 Decision”); Reckitt\\nBenckiser Pharm. Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A., No. 14-\\n1451-RGA, 2017 WL 3782782 (D. Del. Aug. 31, 2017) (“DRL\\n’150 Decision”). Watson and Teva appeal from the court’s\\njudgment in a third decision that the ’514 patent is not in-\\nvalid as indefinite. Reckitt Benckiser Pharm. Inc. v. Wat-\\nson Labs., Inc., Nos. 13-1674-RGA, 14-422-RGA, 2016 WL\\n3186659 (D. Del. June 3, 2016) (“Watson Decision”); J.A.\\n212–14. 1 Watson also appeals from the court’s finding in\\nthat decision that Watson infringes the ’514 patent, as well\\nas the court’s subsequent order denying it relief from the\\ninfringement judgment under Rule 59. Reckitt Benckiser\\nPharm. Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc., Nos. 13-1674-RGA, 14-\\n422-RGA, 2017 WL 3820943 (D. Del. Aug. 31, 2017) (“Rule\\n59 Decision”).\\n Indivior Inc., Indivior UK Limited, and Aquestive\\nTherapeutics, Inc. (collectively, “Indivior”) cross-appeal\\nfrom the district court’s findings in the two DRL decisions\\nthat DRL does not infringe either the ’514 or the ’150 pa-\\ntent. Indivior also appeals from a fourth decision by the\\nsame court finding that Alvogen Pine Brook, LLC (“Al-\\nvogen”) does not infringe the ’514 patent. Indivior Inc. v.\\nMylan Techs. Inc., 298 F. Supp. 3d 775 (D. Del. 2018) (“Al-\\nvogen Decision”). Finally, Indivior requests that the court’s\\njudgment in the Watson case of invalidity of claims 15–19\\nof U.S. Patent 8,475,832 (the “’832 patent”) be vacated as\\nmoot.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Unless otherwise noted, all J.A. citations are to the\\njoint appendix filed in the DRL appeal.\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 5\\n\\n\\n\\n We vacate as moot the district court’s decision holding\\nclaims 15–19 of the ’832 patent invalid as obvious. We af-\\nfirm the court on all other issues.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Indivior markets and holds the New Drug Application\\n(“NDA”) for Suboxone® sublingual film (“Suboxone Film”),\\nan opioid addiction treatment that combines two active in-\\ngredients: the opioid buprenorphine and the opioid antag-\\nonist naloxone. Suboxone Film is applied below a patient’s\\ntongue, where it then rapidly dissolves to release the active\\ningredients. In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration\\n(“FDA”) approved Indivior’s film product, the first such\\nproduct to gain FDA approval. Previously, Indivior sold\\nbuprenorphine/naloxone only in a tablet form.\\n These appeals involve issues of infringement and inva-\\nlidity of four patents covering pharmaceutical films and\\nmethods of making them. However, the parties’ substan-\\ntive disputes focus on only two patents, the ’514 and ’150\\npatents. Both patents claim pharmaceutical films and are\\nlisted in the Orange Book 2 as covering Suboxone Film.\\nRepresentative claims of the two patents are set forth in\\nthe Appendix. The ’497 patent is directed to film manufac-\\nturing methods, and the parties do not distinguish it from\\nthe ’514 patent with respect to the issues on appeal.\\nAquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (“Aquestive”) owns these\\nthree patents and exclusively licenses them to Indivior. 3\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 This publication is formally entitled “Approved\\nDrug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evalua-\\ntions.”\\n 3 Indivior was formerly known as Reckitt Benckiser\\nPharmaceuticals Inc. Aquestive was formerly known as\\nMonoSol Rx, LLC. For simplicity, we refer to the former\\nentities by their present names.\\n\\n6 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe fourth patent, the ’832 patent, claims film formula-\\ntions and is owned by Indivior.\\n A. The Patents in Suit\\n 1. The ’514 and ’497 Patents\\n The ’514 patent claims pharmaceutical films with a\\nuniform distribution of active ingredient. As described in\\nthe specification, drug content uniformity is required by\\nregulatory authorities yet difficult to achieve in practice be-\\ncause of problems in manufacturing the films. ’514 patent\\ncol. 2 ll. 18–21, 42–46, 57–59. Generally, a film may be\\nmade by mixing an active compound with a solvent to form\\na flowable matrix, casting the mixture onto a planar sur-\\nface, and then drying the film to produce a solid sheet. Id.\\ncol. 5 ll. 41–54, col. 6 ll. 49–60.\\n Multiple factors in the film-making process can affect\\nuniformity. “By avoiding the introduction of and eliminat-\\ning excessive air in the mixing process, selecting polymers\\nand solvents to provide a controllable viscosity and by dry-\\ning the film in a rapid manner from the bottom up, such\\n[uniform] films result.” Id. col. 23 ll. 16–20. Claim 62, the\\nsole independent claim at issue from the ’514 patent, is rep-\\nresentative and recites “a cast film comprising a flowable\\nwater-soluble or water swellable film-forming matrix,”\\n“wherein the uniformity subsequent to casting and drying\\nof the matrix is measured by . . . unit doses which do not\\nvary by more than 10%” of the amount of active. Id. col. 73\\nll. 49–50, col. 74 ll. 6–9 (emphases added). The claim iden-\\ntifies two parameters—viscosity and drying—that contrib-\\nute to film uniformity: (1) the viscosity of the matrix must\\nbe “sufficient to aid in substantially maintaining non-self-\\naggregating uniformity” of the active (the “viscosity limita-\\ntion”); and (2) the matrix must be “capable of being dried\\nwithout loss of substantial uniformity of the active” (the\\n“drying limitation”). Id. col. 73 l. 53–col. 74 l. 5. The other\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 7\\n\\n\\n\\nasserted claims of the ’514 patent all depend from claim\\n62. 4\\n The drying limitation is central to several of the issues\\non appeal. The specification teaches that using conven-\\ntional drying methods, which apply hot air to the top of the\\nfilm, produces nonuniform films. E.g., id. col. 8 ll. 56–64,\\ncol. 22 ll. 41–60. As hot air strikes the surface of the film,\\nwater at the surface evaporates, forming a polymer skin\\nthat seals the aqueous composition below. Id. col. 3 ll. 37–\\n42. But as heating continues, the vapor pressure of the un-\\nderlying aqueous composition builds, causing the film sur-\\nface to stretch and ultimately break to allow the vapor to\\nescape. Id. col. 3 ll. 45–49. The polymer skin then reforms,\\nand the cycle of surface destruction and reformation con-\\ntinues until drying is complete. Id. col. 3 ll. 49–52. Unde-\\nsirably, this cycle produces a dried film that is uneven and\\nnonuniform, which the patent refers to as the “ripple ef-\\nfect.” Id. col. 3 ll. 51–54.\\n To produce a uniform film, the specification discloses\\ncontrolled drying processes that differ from conventional\\ntechniques. In a section titled “Drying Wet Cast Films,” id.\\ncol. 28 l. 51, the specification states that “[t]he wet film may\\nbe dried using controlled bottom drying or controlled micro-\\nwave drying, desirably in the absence of external air cur-\\nrents or heat on the top (exposed) surface of the film,” id.\\ncol. 28 ll. 52–55 (emphasis added). Such methods allow for\\nvapor release without the disadvantages described above.\\nId. col. 28 ll. 55–57. In contrast, “[c]onventional convection\\nair drying from the top is not employed” because it produces\\n\\n\\n 4 Indivior asserted claims 62–65, 69, 71, and 73\\nagainst DRL, DRL ’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *2;\\nclaims 62, 64, 65, 69, and 73 against Watson, Watson Deci-\\nsion, 2016 WL 3186659, at *2; and claims 62, 63, 65, 69, 71,\\nand 73 against Alvogen, Alvogen Decision, 298 F. Supp. 3d\\nat 776.\\n\\n8 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nthe ripple effect. Id. col. 28 ll. 57–64 (emphasis added). If\\nsome top air is used, “it is balanced with the bottom air\\ndrying to avoid non-uniformity.” Id. col. 29 ll. 1–3.\\n In addition to controlling the location of the source of\\nair, the specification teaches a “zone drying procedure” in\\nwhich the film is dried along a belt with different drying\\nzones that may vary in temperature, humidity, or other at-\\nmospheric conditions. Id. col. 32 ll. 38–67. The specifica-\\ntion does not specify whether the air comes from the top or\\nbottom during zone drying but does indicate that zone dry-\\ning “dries the film without surface skinning.” Id. col. 32 ll.\\n49–50. Zone drying may be supplemented with additional\\nprocesses such as lamination “so long as controlled drying\\nis maintained in accordance with the invention.” Id. col. 33\\nll. 1–4.\\n Claim 62 also recites that the flowable matrix has a\\nviscosity “sufficient to aid” in maintaining film uniformity.\\nId. col. 73 ll. 53–55. The specification provides suitable\\nranges of matrix viscosity, which are “generally” 400–\\n100,000 centipoise, “preferably” 800–60,000 centipoise, and\\n“most preferably” 1,000–40,000 centipoise. Id. col. 11 ll.\\n26–29. The choice of polymer has an important role in af-\\nfecting viscosity and hence film uniformity. See id. col. 11\\nll. 15–24.\\n Similar to the ’514 patent, the ’497 patent claims pro-\\ncesses for making pharmaceutical films. Claim 24, the sole\\nasserted claim, depends from claim 1, which recites a dry-\\ning limitation similar to claim 62 of the ’514 patent: a “dry-\\ning” step to form a film “having a substantially uniform\\ndistribution” of an active compound. ’497 patent col. 57 ll.\\n8–10. The specification of the ’497 patent is also substan-\\ntively similar to that of the ’514 patent.\\n 2. ’150 Patent\\n Like the ’514 patent, the ’150 patent is directed to uni-\\nform pharmaceutical films, but it claims them somewhat\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 9\\n\\n\\n\\ndifferently. Rather than identifying process parameters\\nrelevant to film uniformity, as in the ’514 patent, the as-\\nserted claims of the ’150 patent claim pharmaceutical films\\nby their components. Claim 1 is representative of the as-\\nserted claims and recites a film comprising an active ingre-\\ndient and a water-soluble polymer component containing\\ncertain proportions of polyethylene oxide (“PEO”), includ-\\ning both low molecular weight PEO (“L-PEO”) and high\\nmolecular weight PEO (“H-PEO”), and a hydrophilic cellu-\\nlosic polymer. ’150 patent col. 57 ll. 35–54. The specifica-\\ntion lists various “useful water[-]soluble polymers,”\\nincluding PEO, hydrophilic cellulosic polymers, and a sep-\\narate compound, polyvinyl pyrrolidone. Id. col. 15 ll. 47–\\n52. The other asserted claims—4, 5, 8, and 9—each depend\\nfrom claim 1. DRL ’150 Decision, 2017 WL 3782782, at *1.\\n The ’150 patent claims priority from an earlier provi-\\nsional application, U.S. Patent Application 60/473,902 (the\\n“’902 application”).\\n B. The Decisions on Appeal\\n Several generic drug companies filed Abbreviated New\\nDrug Applications (“ANDAs”) to market generic versions of\\nSuboxone Film prior to the expiration of the patents in suit.\\nIndivior then brought several actions for patent infringe-\\nment, accusing DRL of infringing the ’514 and ’150 patents,\\nand both DRL and Watson of infringing the ’497 patent;\\nWatson of infringing the ’514 and ’832 patents; and Al-\\nvogen of infringing the ’514 and ’497 patents. 5\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 DRL’s ANDA was originally owned by Teva, which\\ntransferred its interest to DRL but maintained an interest\\nin a related product. Teva agreed to be bound by the court’s\\ndecision in the DRL ’514 patent case for the related prod-\\nuct. J.A. 30001–06; see J.A. 210–14 (district court’s final\\njudgments).\\n\\n10 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n The district court held four bench trials and decided\\nmultiple issues of infringement and validity concerning the\\nasserted patents. We discuss only the issues pertinent to\\nthese appeals.\\n 1. Watson ’514 Decision\\n The first trial over the ’514 patent involved Indivior’s\\nclaim that Watson infringed the ’514 patent. Watson did\\nnot request construction of the drying limitation. The court\\nfound that Watson infringed the ’514 patent and that Wat-\\nson did not meet its burden to prove the asserted claims\\ninvalid as indefinite. Watson Decision, 2016 WL 3186659,\\nat *16, *21.\\n Indivior also asserted the ’832 patent against Watson.\\nThe district court concluded that claims 15–19 of the ’832\\npatent are invalid as obvious. Id. at *11. In a parallel inter\\npartes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal\\nBoard held claims 15–19 unpatentable as anticipated and\\nobvious. BioDelivery Scis. Int’l, Inc. v. RB Pharm. Ltd., No.\\nIPR2014-00325, 2015 WL 4045328, at *16 (P.T.A.B. June\\n30, 2015), aff’d, 667 F. App’x 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016).\\n After trial, Watson modified its film manufacturing\\nprocess and requested relief under Rule 59 from the district\\ncourt’s infringement judgment. The court denied relief,\\nfinding no manifest injustice in upholding its final judg-\\nment. Rule 59 Decision, 2017 WL 3820943, at *3.\\n 2. DRL ’514 Decision and the Related Appeal\\n In a second trial over the ’514 patent, the district court\\nconsidered Indivior’s claims that DRL infringed the ’514\\npatent and that DRL and Watson infringed the ’497 patent.\\nUnlike in the previous case, the parties (including Watson)\\ndisputed the meaning of the drying limitation. The court\\nconstrued the drying limitation of the ’514 patent to mean\\n“dried without solely employing conventional convection\\nair drying from the top,” because it concluded that the spec-\\nification disclaimed such conventional top drying\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 11\\n\\n\\n\\ntechniques. DRL ’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *4;\\nsee Reckitt Benckiser Pharm. Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA,\\nInc., Nos. 14-1451-RGA, 14-1573-RGA, 14-1574-RGA, 2016\\nWL 3621632, at *10–11 (D. Del. June 29, 2016) (“Claim\\nConstruction Order”). The court found that DRL’s drying\\nprocess uses dryers where the sole source of heat comes\\nfrom the top and thus does not infringe the asserted claims\\nof the ’514 patent. DRL ’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312,\\nat *5–6. For similar reasons, the court found that neither\\nDRL nor Watson infringed the asserted claim of the ’497\\npatent. DRL ’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *5–6, *9.\\n The court also held that DRL failed to prove by clear\\nand convincing evidence that the asserted claims of either\\nthe ’514 or the ’497 patent would have been obvious over\\nthe cited prior art. Id. at *20.\\n After the district court’s judgment of noninfringement,\\nIndivior amended claims of a pending continuation appli-\\ncation that ultimately issued as U.S. Patent 9,931,305 (the\\n“’305 patent”). The amendment removed the words “dried”\\nand “drying” from the language of claim 62, instead recit-\\ning that the film be “capable of being continuously cast . . .\\nwithout loss of substantial uniformity” and that “uni-\\nformity of the-continuously cast film is measured by\\n. . . unit doses cut from the continuously cast film which do\\nnot vary by more than 10%” of the amount of the active.\\n’305 patent col. 73 ll. 21–29 (emphases added). The ’305\\npatent shares a specification with, and is terminally dis-\\nclaimed to, the ’514 patent.\\n Soon after the ’305 patent issued, Indivior again sued\\nDRL for patent infringement, this time asserting the ’305\\npatent in the District of New Jersey. DRL had since\\nlaunched its competing generic product, and Indivior\\nmoved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary\\ninjunction at the New Jersey court. DRL argued that In-\\ndivior’s New Jersey action was barred as claim precluded\\nby the Delaware court’s judgment. The New Jersey court\\n\\n12 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nconcluded that claim preclusion likely would not apply and\\nthat Indivior would likely be able to prove infringement.\\nIndivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A., No. 17-CV-7111,\\n2018 WL 3496643, at *8, *11 (D.N.J. July 20, 2018). Con-\\nsequently, the court entered a temporary restraining order\\nand then a preliminary injunction against DRL’s generic\\nproduct. Id. at *14.\\n DRL appealed to this court. Despite the claim amend-\\nments, the panel majority held that the cast films claimed\\nin the ’305 patent still had to be dried and were subject to\\nthe same specification disclaimer as the ’514 patent. In-\\ndivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., S.A., 752 F. App’x 1024,\\n1031–32 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Indivior”). Under the proper\\nconstruction, we concluded that the asserted claims of the\\n’305 patent were materially identical to those of the ’514\\npatent already adjudicated. Id. at 1034–35. Accordingly,\\nwe held that Indivior’s New Jersey action was likely claim\\nprecluded, vacated the court’s preliminary injunction, and\\nremanded for further proceedings. Id. at 1035.\\n 3. Alvogen ’514 Decision\\n In the third trial over the ’514 patent, the district court\\nconsidered Indivior’s claim that Alvogen infringed the ’514\\npatent. The court construed the drying limitation as it did\\nin the DRL ’514 Decision. Alvogen Decision, 298 F. Supp.\\n3d at 779. And as in the DRL case, the court found that\\nAlvogen’s film manufacturing process dries the films pri-\\nmarily from the top and thus does not meet the drying lim-\\nitation and does not infringe the asserted claims. Id. at\\n784–85.\\n 4. DRL ’150 Decision\\n In addition to the ’514 patent, Indivior asserted that\\nDRL infringed the ’150 patent under the doctrine of equiv-\\nalents. The district court held a separate trial on the ’150\\npatent and found that DRL does not infringe any of the as-\\nserted claims. DRL ’150 Decision, 2017 WL 3782782, at\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 13\\n\\n\\n\\n*4–5. The court also held that DRL did not prove that the\\nasserted claims of the ’150 patent would have been obvious.\\nId. at *7–8.\\n C. The Appeals\\n DRL appeals from the district court’s judgments that\\nthe asserted claims of the ’514, ’497, and ’150 patents are\\nnot invalid as obvious. Watson and Teva appeal from the\\ncourt’s judgments that the ’514 patent is not invalid as in-\\ndefinite, that Watson infringes the ’514 patent, and that\\nWatson is not entitled to Rule 59 relief from the infringe-\\nment judgment.\\n Indivior cross-appeals from the district court’s determi-\\nnations that DRL does not infringe either the ’514 or the\\n’150 patent and that Alvogen does not infringe the ’514 pa-\\ntent. Indivior also requests vacatur of the court’s judgment\\nthat certain claims of the ’832 patent would have been ob-\\nvious over the cited prior art.\\n We have jurisdiction over each appeal under 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1295(a)(1). We first address the parties’ disputes con-\\ncerning the ’514 patent and then turn to the ’150 and ’832\\npatents.\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n On appeal from a bench trial, we review a district\\ncourt’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact\\nfor clear error. Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc.,\\n749 F.3d 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A factual finding is\\nclearly erroneous if, despite some supporting evidence, we\\nare left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake\\nhas been made. United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S.\\n364, 395 (1948). “The burden of overcoming the district\\ncourt’s factual findings is, as it should be, a heavy one.” Po-\\nlaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 789 F.2d 1556, 1559\\n(Fed. Cir. 1986).\\n\\n14 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n A. Infringement of the ’514 Patent\\n Indivior challenges the district court’s judgments that\\nDRL and Alvogen do not infringe the ’514 patent. Watson\\nappeals from the court’s separate judgment that it does in-\\nfringe the ’514 patent. We first consider Indivior’s cross-\\nappeal and appeal and then turn to Watson’s appeal.\\n An infringement analysis has two steps. Clare v.\\nChrysler Grp. LLC, 819 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016).\\nFirst, the court construes the asserted claims. Claim con-\\nstruction is a question of law that may involve underlying\\nfactual questions. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,\\n135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). But when, as here, the court’s\\nconstruction of the relevant limitation is based solely on\\nthe intrinsic evidence, we review its construction de novo.\\nHTC Corp. v. Cellular Commc’ns Equip., LLC, 877 F.3d\\n1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Second, the court determines\\nwhether the accused product meets each limitation of the\\nclaim as construed, which is a question of fact that we re-\\nview for clear error. Wright Med. Tech., Inc. v. Osteonics\\nCorp., 122 F.3d 1440, 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1997).\\n 1. Indivior’s Appeal and Cross-Appeal\\n Indivior’s challenges to the district court’s judgments\\nof noninfringement largely turn on the proper construction\\nof the drying limitation. In the DRL and Alvogen cases,\\nthe district court construed the drying limitation to mean\\n“dried without solely employing conventional convection\\nair drying from the top.” Alvogen Decision, 298 F. Supp. 3d\\nat 779; DRL ’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *4; Claim\\nConstruction Order, 2016 WL 3621632, at *11. That con-\\nstruction rested on the court’s conclusion that the patentee\\ndisclaimed drying wet cast films using solely conventional\\nconvection air drying from the top. The court’s disclaimer\\nconclusion was based on the ’514 patent specification’s ex-\\npress statements of what the invention is, its repeated dis-\\nparagement of conventional top drying methods, and the\\npatent applicant’s characterization of the invention during\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 15\\n\\n\\n\\nprosecution. Claim Construction Order, 2016 WL 3621632,\\nat *6, *11.\\n In Indivior, we likewise concluded that the same spec-\\nification in the related ’305 patent disclaimed conventional\\ntop air drying. 752 F. App’x at 1031–32. In addressing\\nwhether Indivior’s assertion of the ’305 patent raised the\\nsame cause of action as the ’514 patent, we concluded:\\n [T]he specification limits the scope of the “continu-\\n ously cast” limitation in the ’305 claims as it lim-\\n ited the scope of the “drying” limitation in the ’514\\n claims. Specifically, films formed with conven-\\n tional top air drying methods are excluded from the\\n scope of both claim terms.\\nId. at 1034–35 (emphasis added). We explained that\\n“[w]hile the language of the claim terms changed, the scope\\nof the claims did not materially change.” Id. at 1035 (em-\\nphasis added). Even where different patents are asserted\\nbetween two suits, claim preclusion bars a patentee from\\nbringing successive suits accusing the defendant’s same\\nproduct of infringing essentially the same patent claims.\\nSimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC, 884 F.3d 1160, 1167 (Fed.\\nCir. 2018); see Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 525 F.3d\\n1319, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Because—and only because—\\nthe asserted claims of the ’305 patent were materially the\\nsame as those that were or could have been asserted in the\\n’514 patent, we held that Indivior’s action on the ’305 pa-\\ntent was likely claim precluded and that the district court\\nabused its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction.\\nIndivior, 752 F. App’x at 1035.\\n In both the DRL and Alvogen appeals, Indivior argues\\nthat the district court erred in concluding that the ’514 pa-\\ntent specification disclaimed drying methods that use\\nsolely conventional convection air drying from the top. In-\\nstead, Indivior contends that the drying limitation should\\nbe given its plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent that\\nthe specification did disclaim certain top drying methods,\\n\\n16 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nIndivior alternatively argues that the disclaimer cannot\\nencompass zone drying.\\n Both DRL and Alvogen respond that the district court\\nproperly construed the drying limitation, as this court con-\\nfirmed in Indivior.\\n We agree with DRL and Alvogen that the district court\\ncorrectly construed the drying limitation and that the ’514\\npatent specification disclaims conventional top air drying.\\nThe specification “is the single best guide to the meaning\\nof a disputed term,” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,\\n1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks\\nomitted), and where it “makes clear that the invention does\\nnot include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to\\nbe outside the reach of the claims of the patent,” SciMed\\nLife Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242\\nF.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see Chi. Bd. Options\\nExch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361, 1372\\n(Fed. Cir. 2012). The asserted claims recite a film that is\\n“capable of being dried without loss of substantial uni-\\nformity,” but, as we already concluded in Indivior, and as\\nwe again explain below, the specification repeatedly makes\\nclear that conventional top air drying does not yield uni-\\nform films. ’514 patent col. 74 ll. 3–5. Such drying is thus\\noutside the reach of the claims.\\n A specification may disclaim an embodiment by repeat-\\nedly disparaging it. See Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,\\n808 F.3d 509, 513–14 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Chi. Bd., 677 F.3d\\nat 1372. Here, the specification repeatedly disparages con-\\nventional top air drying because such drying does not pro-\\nduce uniform films, the central object of the claimed\\ninvention. For example, the specification teaches that “the\\nconventional drying methods themselves are unable to pro-\\nvide uniform films.” ’514 patent col. 3 ll. 14–16. In the\\nsection focused on “Drying Wet Cast Films,” the specifica-\\ntion likewise discloses that “[c]onventional convection air\\ndrying from the top is not employed.” Id. col. 28 ll. 51, 57–\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 17\\n\\n\\n\\n58. And the patent explains why: conventional top air dry-\\ning\\n initiates drying at the top uppermost portion of the\\n film, thereby forming a barrier against fluid flow,\\n such as the evaporative vapors, and thermal flow,\\n such as the thermal energy for drying. Such dried\\n upper portions serve as a barrier to further vapor\\n release as the portions beneath are dried, which re-\\n sults in non-uniform films.\\nId. col. 28 ll. 57–64.\\n This undesirable phenomenon is described elsewhere\\nas the ripple effect. Id. col. 3 ll. 33–54. The ripple effect is\\n“avoided by the present invention” “by applying heat to the\\nbottom surface of the film with substantially no top air\\nflow” or by using controlled microwaves, “again with sub-\\nstantially no top air flow.” Id. col. 22 ll. 48–57, col. 28 ll.\\n52–55 (“The wet film may be dried using controlled bottom\\ndrying or controlled microwave drying, desirably in the ab-\\nsence of external air currents or heat on the top (exposed)\\nsurface of the film . . . .”). “If top air is employed, it is bal-\\nanced with the bottom air drying to avoid non-uniformity\\n. . . .” Id. col. 29 ll. 1–3.\\n The specification also provides examples that demon-\\nstrate the failure of conventional drying methods to achieve\\nuniformity. Examples CH and CG examined whether un-\\ndesirable particle aggregations occurred during conven-\\ntional drying techniques as compared to “the uniform\\ndrying process of the present invention.” Id. col. 52 ll. 27–\\n28. In example CH, films were placed in an oven “on trays\\nlined with furnace filters, which uniformly distribute heat.”\\nId. col. 52 ll. 57–59. The resulting dried films were homog-\\nenous with no particle aggregations. Id. col. 52 ll. 60–62.\\nIn contrast, when films were dried in an oven “by conven-\\ntional top and bottom drying means,” particle aggregations\\noccurred. Id. col. 53 ll. 1–3, 8–10. Similarly, example CG\\nreports that when films were “dried according to\\n\\n18 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nconventional drying techniques, rather than via the uni-\\nform drying process of the present invention,” the resulting\\nfilms had particle aggregations. Id. col. 52 ll. 26–28, 39–\\n40. And again, when films were instead dried “by the pro-\\ncess of the present invention,” on trays lined with furnace\\nfilters, the resulting films were homogenous and lacked\\nparticle aggregations. Id. col. 52 ll. 43–50. Nowhere does\\nthe specification describe making a uniform film with only\\nconventional convection air drying from the top.\\n Indivior emphasizes that the specification describes\\nother factors that affect film uniformity. Indivior Reply Br.\\n5–7. We agree that both the asserted claims and the spec-\\nification identify other factors, such as viscosity, that may\\ncontribute to uniformity. E.g., ’514 patent col. 73 ll. 53–55,\\ncol. 74 ll. 3–5 (claim 62 containing both viscosity and drying\\nlimitations); id. col. 23 ll. 14–20 (specification indicating\\nlikewise). But the unequivocal disparagement of conven-\\ntional top air drying detailed above demonstrates that\\nother factors may not substitute for controlled drying of a\\nwet cast film to achieve uniformity. As Indivior’s expert\\nexplained, uniformity can be lost at any step of the manu-\\nfacturing process, and once lost cannot be recovered. J.A.\\n17209.\\n Indivior nonetheless argues, first in its reply brief, that\\n“polymer selection and the resulting viscosity may be used\\nas an alternative to controlled drying.” Indivior Reply Br.\\n7. This argument is inconsistent with Indivior’s own\\nacknowledgement that uniformity can be lost throughout\\nthe manufacturing process, and that neither the drying nor\\nthe viscosity limitation of the asserted claims renders the\\nother superfluous. Indivior Cross-Appellant Br. 47. Like-\\nwise, the specification indicates that no individual factor\\ncan guarantee uniformity of a wet cast film after drying.\\n’514 patent col. 3 ll. 3–9 (“The long length of drying time\\naids in promoting the aggregation of the active and other\\nadjuvant, notwithstanding the use of viscosity modifiers.”\\n(emphasis added)), col. 23 ll. 14–20 (“The present invention\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 19\\n\\n\\n\\nyields exceptionally uniform film products . . . . By avoid-\\ning . . . excessive air in the mixing process, selecting poly-\\nmers and solvents to provide a controllable viscosity and\\nby drying the film in a rapid manner from the bottom up,\\nsuch films result.” (emphasis added)). The lone statement\\npurportedly to the contrary cited by Indivior, id. col. 4 ll.\\n61–64 (“Alternatively, or in addition to controlling the dry-\\ning the film, the polymer may be selected in order to pro-\\nvide a viscosity that maintains the non-self-aggregating\\nuniform heterogeneity.”), does not change our conclusion in\\nlight of the specification’s unambiguous disparagement of\\nconventional top air drying and its teachings as a whole.\\n Even if the specification did disclaim certain drying\\nmethods, Indivior contends that the disclaimer cannot ex-\\ntend to zone drying. Indivior Cross-Appellant Br. 43. Zone\\ndrying, according to Indivior, is a preferred embodiment\\nthat can achieve uniform films and cannot be excluded\\nfrom the claims.\\n Indivior plainly waived this limited disclaimer argu-\\nment by not raising it in the DRL case until post-trial brief-\\ning. See, e.g., Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild\\nSemiconductor Int’l, Inc., 904 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir.\\n2018). However, it did raise a claim construction argument\\nresembling the one on appeal in a footnote in the Alvogen\\ncase, Alvogen J.A. 91990 n.20, which the district court re-\\njected, Alvogen Decision, 298 F. Supp. 3d at 783.\\n Even if we assume waiver does not apply, the specifi-\\ncation’s discussion of zone drying does not qualify its dis-\\nclaimer of conventional top air drying. Zone drying just\\nrefers to using a drying tunnel with multiple “drying zones”\\nalong the belt that may differ in various atmospheric con-\\nditions. ’514 patent col. 32 ll. 38–45; id. figs. 35–36. Con-\\nsistent with the rest of the specification, the patent\\nnowhere suggests that zone drying achieves uniform films\\nby using solely conventional top air drying. Rather, the pa-\\ntent explains that zone drying may be supplemented with\\n\\n20 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nadditional processes only “so long as controlled drying is\\nmaintained in accordance with the invention.” Id. col. 33\\nll. 1–4. And contrary to Indivior’s argument, the district\\ncourt’s construction does not exclude any zone drying em-\\nbodiments; it just excludes zone drying that uses solely con-\\nventional convection air drying from the top, which is never\\ndisclosed in the patent. We thus conclude that the disclo-\\nsure of zone drying does not qualify the specification’s re-\\npeated disparagement of solely top air drying.\\n Consistent with our previous Indivior decision, we ul-\\ntimately agree with the district court that the ’514 patent\\nspecification unmistakably disclaimed conventional top air\\ndrying as unable to produce the claimed uniform films. 6\\nAccordingly, we affirm the court’s construction of the dry-\\ning limitation and proceed to the second step of the in-\\nfringement analysis, considering DRL’s and Alvogen’s\\ndistinct ANDA processes separately.\\n The district court found that DRL’s ANDA product does\\nnot infringe the asserted claims of the ’514 patent. DRL\\n’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *5–6. Although the\\ncourt found that the drying process is controlled in certain\\nways to assure film uniformity, it determined that the sole\\nsource of heat in its drying process is hot air coming from\\nabove the film and that any bottom drying that occurred\\nwas incidental. Id. at *5. Consequently, the court found\\nthat DRL does not infringe the drying limitation and thus\\ndoes not infringe any of the asserted claims. Id. at *6.\\n Indivior argues that the district court clearly erred in\\nfinding that DRL’s ANDA product does not infringe the as-\\nserted claims of the ’514 patent. Even under the court’s\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Because we conclude that the specification dis-\\nclaims conventional top air drying, we need not decide\\nwhether the prosecution history further supports that dis-\\nclaimer.\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 21\\n\\n\\n\\nconstruction, Indivior contends that DRL’s drying process\\nis tightly controlled to maintain uniformity and uses bal-\\nanced top air and bottom air drying.\\n DRL responds that the district court did not clearly err\\nin finding noninfringement because DRL’s drying process\\nuses solely conventional top air drying.\\n We agree with DRL that the district court did not\\nclearly err in finding that DRL’s drying process does not\\nmeet the drying limitation and thus does not infringe the\\nasserted claims of the ’514 patent. Indivior does not seri-\\nously dispute the essential predicates of the court’s nonin-\\nfringement finding: that the sole source of heat in DRL’s\\ndrying process is hot air from above the film, and that any\\nbottom drying is merely incidental. See id. at *5 (“DRL’s\\nuse of ‘bottom drying’ is essentially that the inside of the\\noven simply gets hot . . . .”). Indivior thus has not shown\\nclear error in the court’s holding that DRL employs conven-\\ntional top air drying, which is insufficient to meet the dry-\\ning limitation as properly construed. Accordingly, we\\naffirm the court’s finding that DRL does not infringe the\\nasserted claims of the ’514 patent.\\n We next address Indivior’s appeal concerning Alvogen’s\\nANDA product. The district court found that Alvogen’s\\nANDA product does not infringe the ’514 patent because it\\ndoes not meet the drying limitation. Alvogen Decision, 298\\nF. Supp. 3d at 785. The court credited Alvogen’s expert’s\\ntestimony that nozzles above the film supply all the hot air\\nto dry the films, id. at 780–81, and found that any bottom\\ndrying in Alvogen’s process is insubstantial, id. at 784.\\n Indivior argues that the district court clearly erred in\\nits noninfringement finding because even some insubstan-\\ntial bottom drying brings Alvogen’s process within the\\nreach of the asserted claims. We disagree. Indivior’s argu-\\nment is largely repetitive of its claim construction argu-\\nments, which we have rejected. The district court found\\nthat even solely conventional top air drying can result in\\n\\n22 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nsome incidental drying from the bottom, but that such in-\\nsubstantial bottom drying does not infringe the asserted\\nclaims as construed in light of the specification’s disclaimer\\nof conventional top air drying. Id. (“Plaintiffs have not\\ndemonstrated ‘substantial’ bottom drying such that Al-\\nvogen’s dryer can be said to employ anything but ‘conven-\\ntional convection air drying from the top.’”); accord DRL\\n’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *5 (finding that inci-\\ndental bottom drying did not infringe asserted claims). We\\nconclude that this finding is not clearly erroneous or prem-\\nised on an improper claim construction, and therefore af-\\nfirm the district court’s judgment that Alvogen does not\\ninfringe the asserted claims of the ’514 patent.\\n 2. Watson’s Appeal\\n We now consider Watson’s infringement appeal. Wat-\\nson makes two arguments in its appeal from the district\\ncourt’s judgment that Watson’s ANDA product infringes\\nthe asserted claims of the ’514 patent. Watson Decision,\\n2016 WL 3186659, at *21. First, Watson argues that the\\ncourt erred in not granting Watson Rule 59 relief after the\\namendment of its ANDA. Second, Watson argues that the\\ncourt erred in finding that its ANDA product meets the vis-\\ncosity limitation of the asserted claims. We address each\\nargument in turn.\\n Unlike DRL and Alvogen, Watson never requested con-\\nstruction of the drying limitation when it litigated the ’514\\npatent against Indivior, although it joined DRL in arguing\\nfor the narrower construction of the similar limitation in\\nthe ’497 patent. After the district court entered judgment\\nof infringement, Watson amended its ANDA process to re-\\nmove bottom heating sources. It then moved under Rule\\n59 to reopen the court’s judgment.\\n The district court denied Rule 59 relief. Rule 59 Deci-\\nsion, 2017 WL 3820943, at *3. The court found no manifest\\ninjustice in holding Watson to its decision not to request\\nconstruction of the drying limitation. Id. at *2. According\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 23\\n\\n\\n\\nto the court, Watson knew of and in fact proposed the nar-\\nrower construction of that limitation alongside DRL in its\\ncase concerning the ’497 patent, yet never requested such\\na construction in Watson’s own ’514 patent case. Id. The\\ncourt observed that the broader construction of the drying\\nlimitation potentially gave Watson a stronger invalidity\\nposition at the expense of noninfringement. Id. Addition-\\nally, the court decided that Watson was a sophisticated lit-\\nigant that “should be bound by the litigation decisions [it]\\nmake[s].” Id.\\n On appeal, Watson argues that the district court\\nabused its discretion in not reopening the judgment under\\nRule 59. Indivior responds that the court acted well within\\nits discretion in denying Watson such relief.\\n We agree with Indivior that the district court did not\\nabuse its discretion. While Rule 59 gives a court authority\\nto alter or amend a judgment, that authority is exercised\\nonly in limited circumstances, such as to prevent a mani-\\nfest injustice. See United States ex rel. Schumann v. Astra-\\nZeneca Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848–49 (3d Cir. 2014).\\nWatson argues that it is manifestly unjust that different\\ngeneric products will be treated differently depending on\\nhow their cases were litigated. But it is neither unusual\\nnor unjust for a party to be bound by its litigation decisions,\\nparticularly here where Watson was fully aware of but did\\nnot request the claim construction it now seeks. The dis-\\ntrict court found that, while there is an interest in con-\\nsistency across judgments, there is also a public interest in\\nfinality and judicial efficiency, Rule 59 Decision, 2017 WL\\n3820943, at *2, and we discern no abuse of discretion in the\\ncourt’s balancing of those factors in this particular case.\\nFurthermore, Watson acknowledges that it can still seek a\\njudgment of noninfringement based on the amended ANDA\\nprocess even if it fails to secure Rule 59 relief. Under these\\ncircumstances, we conclude that the court acted within its\\ndiscretion in declining to reopen its judgment based on a\\n\\n24 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nclaim construction argument that Watson knew of yet\\nfailed to raise.\\n Watson separately argues that the district court clearly\\nerred in finding that Watson’s ANDA product meets the\\nviscosity limitation of the ’514 patent claims. The court\\nfound that the viscosity range of Watson’s product was\\nwithin the preferred range disclosed in the ’514 patent and\\nthus was “sufficient to aid” in preventing aggregation of the\\nactive, as required by the viscosity limitation. Watson De-\\ncision, 2016 WL 3186659, at *20.\\n Watson argues that Indivior failed to show that viscos-\\nity contributes to the uniformity of Watson’s films and that\\nthe district court improperly placed the burden on Watson\\nto prove noninfringement. Further, Watson emphasizes\\nthe breadth of the preferred viscosity range and that no\\nparticular viscosity value can guarantee uniformity.\\n Indivior responds that the district court did not clearly\\nerr in finding that Watson’s ANDA product meets the vis-\\ncosity limitation because the ANDA requires a viscosity\\nsquarely within the most preferred range identified in the\\n’514 patent.\\n We agree with Indivior and conclude that the district\\ncourt did not clearly err in finding infringement. The vis-\\ncosity limitation requires that the viscosity of the matrix\\nbe “sufficient to aid” in maintaining uniformity. ’514 pa-\\ntent col. 73 ll. 53–55. As both parties agree, viscosity is one\\nfactor among several identified in the ’514 patent that con-\\ntributes to uniformity. E.g., id. col. 23 ll. 14–20. Specifi-\\ncally, the patent explains that “[v]iscosity is one property\\nof a liquid that controls the stability of the active” and that\\nthe viscosity of the matrix will “generally” be 400–100,000\\ncentipoise, “preferably” be 800–60,000 centipoise, and\\n“most preferably” be 1,000–40,000 centipoise. Id. col. 11 ll.\\n24–29. Watson’s ANDA specifies a viscosity of 5,800–\\n17,500 centipoise, J.A. 80020, 12578, which is, as the court\\ncorrectly found, plainly encompassed by the most preferred\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 25\\n\\n\\n\\nrange disclosed in the ’514 patent. Further, the court did\\nnot clearly err in finding that a film may satisfy the viscos-\\nity limitation even if other factors than viscosity contribute\\nto film uniformity. Watson Decision, 2016 WL 3186659, at\\n*20. As previously discussed, the asserted claims them-\\nselves identify drying as an additional factor affecting uni-\\nformity. Since Watson demonstrates no clear error in the\\ncourt’s infringement judgment, we affirm its finding that\\nWatson’s ANDA product infringes the ’514 patent.\\n B. Validity of the ’514 Patent\\n Watson, Teva, and DRL raise two challenges to the va-\\nlidity of the ’514 patent. Watson and Teva appeal from the\\ncourt’s judgment that the asserted claims of the ’514 patent\\nare not invalid as indefinite. DRL appeals from the court’s\\njudgment that the claims have not been shown to be invalid\\nas obvious. We consider the challenges separately.\\n 1. Indefiniteness\\n A patent must “conclude with one or more claims par-\\nticularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject\\nmatter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35\\nU.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (2006). 7 Because of the statute’s demand\\nfor particularity in claiming, “a patent is invalid for indefi-\\nniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification de-\\nlineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to\\ninform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art\\nabout the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig\\nInstruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014).\\n We review a district court’s indefiniteness judgment as\\nwe do its claim construction, Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 Because the application of the ’514 patent was filed\\nbefore March 16, 2013, the pre-Leahy-Smith America In-\\nvents Act version of § 112 applies. See Pub. L. No. 112-29,\\n125 Stat. 284 (2011).\\n\\n26 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nInt’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2017), which in\\nthis case is de novo.\\n At the district court, the parties’ indefiniteness dis-\\npute focused on claim 62’s recitation of a “cast film compris-\\ning a flowable water-soluble or water swellable film-\\nforming matrix.” ’514 patent col. 73 ll. 49–50. Watson al-\\nleged that this limitation is indefinite because a cast film\\nin its final dosage form is not flowable, and the claim thus\\nrequired a physical impossibility. While the court agreed\\nthat the final cast film could not be flowable, it reasoned\\nthat a product claim may recite elements “in the state in\\nwhich they exist during manufacture, before the final prod-\\nuct exists.” Watson Decision, 2016 WL 3186659, at *15–16.\\nAnd because the intrinsic evidence made clear that the cast\\nfilm was made from a matrix that was flowable only before\\ndrying, the court concluded that the defendants failed to\\nprove that the claims were indefinite. Id. at *16.\\n On appeal, Watson and Teva argue that the claims re-\\ncite a physical impossibility—a flowable yet solid cast\\nfilm—and are therefore indefinite. Indivior responds that\\nthe claims, understood in light of the specification, clearly\\nrecite a matrix that is flowable only before drying.\\n We agree with Indivior that the claim is not indefinite.\\nThe only sensible reading of the claim is that the cast film\\nis made from a matrix that is flowable before drying and is\\nnot simultaneously dry and flowable. For example, the ma-\\ntrix as claimed has a viscosity, which is a property of fluids,\\nnot solids. And the matrix is “capable of being dried,”\\nwhich would be redundant if the matrix is already dried.\\nThe specification similarly explains that the wet matrix is\\n“formed into a film . . . and then dried.” ’514 patent col. 25\\nll. 27–28. The claims and specification thus make quite\\nclear that the flowable matrix is first flowable and then\\ndried.\\n Having no support in the patent itself, Watson and\\nTeva essentially rest on the argument that a product claim\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 27\\n\\n\\n\\n“comprising” certain elements must contain those elements\\nsimultaneously. But the district court properly rejected\\nthis position based on our precedent. For example, in\\nGemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371,\\n1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the patentee claimed a refrigera-\\ntor shelf “comprising” a lower wall having a certain resili-\\nence. Since the specification made clear that the resilience\\nonly referred to resilience during assembly, we held that\\nthe lower wall only required that property during assem-\\nbly. Id. at 1378–79, 1380–81. The ’514 patent likewise\\nmakes clear that the matrix is flowable only at a certain\\ntime—before drying. The word “comprising” in isolation\\ndoes not sustain Watson and Teva’s nonsensical interpre-\\ntation of a flowable dried film that is contrary to both the\\nspecification and the claim language. We thus affirm the\\ndistrict court’s judgment that the ’514 patent has not been\\nshown to be invalid as indefinite.\\n 2. Obviousness\\n We now consider DRL’s appeal from the district court’s\\njudgment of nonobviousness. Obviousness is a question of\\nlaw based on underlying facts, including the scope and con-\\ntent of the prior art, differences between the prior art and\\nthe claims at issue, the level of ordinary skill, and relevant\\nevidence of secondary considerations. Graham v. John\\nDeere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). A patent\\nis presumed valid, and overcoming that presumption at the\\ndistrict court requires clear and convincing evidence. Mi-\\ncrosoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011); Fer-\\nring B.V. v. Watson Labs., Inc.-Fla., 764 F.3d 1401, 1407\\n(Fed. Cir. 2014).\\n In its analysis of the Graham factors, the district court\\nfound that a person of ordinary skill would principally have\\na background in pharmaceutical science or chemistry but\\n“would also be a member of a team, which would include\\nan engineer or scientist with one to three years of relevant\\nexperience manufacturing and optimizing various types of\\n\\n28 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nfilm products using coating and drying processes.” DRL\\n’514 Decision, 2017 WL 3837312, at *15. In reaching this\\ndetermination, the court found some merit both in In-\\ndivior’s argument that the pharmaceutical film field was\\nnascent around the time of invention and in DRL’s argu-\\nment that a person of ordinary skill would have some\\nknowledge relating to coating and drying films. Id.\\n Turning to the prior art, the district court generally\\nfound that there was limited use of top air convection dry-\\ners in the context of pharmaceutical films at the time of\\ninvention. Id. at *16. The court also observed that there\\nwere differences between pharmaceutical and non-phar-\\nmaceutical films, citing in particular the more demanding\\nFDA requirements for drug content uniformity in pharma-\\nceuticals. Id.\\n DRL asserted that the claims were obvious over U.S.\\nPatents 4,849,246 (“Schmidt”), 6,552,024 (“Chen”), and\\n5,881,476 (“Strobush”). The district court made findings on\\nthe teachings of the prior art, which we summarize below.\\n Schmidt disclosed processes for making pharmaceuti-\\ncal films. Schmidt’s films were made through a roll-coating\\nprocess with temperature-controlled rollers and a drying\\ntunnel that was controllable in sections. DRL ’514 Deci-\\nsion, 2017 WL 3837312, at *16. Schmidt also disclosed that\\nthere was a regulatory requirement for drug content uni-\\nformity and that its processes yielded films with a repro-\\nducible weight that varied within 10%. Id. at *17.\\nHowever, the district court found that Schmidt did not ex-\\namine the uniformity of the film after drying, crediting In-\\ndivior’s expert’s testimony. Id.\\n Chen taught pharmaceutical films made by a casting\\nprocess and a drying oven that included top air drying noz-\\nzles and that had controllable temperature and air speed.\\nId. Chen further discussed a human pharmacokinetic\\nstudy conducted with its films. Id. at *18.\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 29\\n\\n\\n\\n Strobush disclosed a method for drying photographic\\nand other non-pharmaceutical films without introducing a\\nsurface defect called “mottle.” Id. at *16. As Strobush was\\nnot directed to pharmaceutical films, it did not address\\ndrug content uniformity. Id.\\n The key dispute between the parties was whether the\\nprior art’s teachings would motivate a skilled artisan to\\nmake a uniform pharmaceutical film according to the\\nclaimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.\\nThe district court found that Schmidt did not directly\\nmeasure drug content uniformity and only indirectly meas-\\nured uniformity before drying. Id. at *17. Further, the\\ncourt cited a subsequent peer-reviewed article indicating\\nthat Schmidt’s process did not produce uniform films. Id.\\nThe court thus found that Schmidt did not disclose how to\\nachieve drug content uniformity. Id.\\n Turning to Chen, the district court found that the ref-\\nerence disclosed a human study using its films, which im-\\nplicitly suggested that the films had uniform drug content.\\nId. at *18. However, the court noted that Chen did not dis-\\nclose that its films had the requisite uniformity and that\\nthe defendants’ expert failed to produce uniform films us-\\ning Chen’s protocol. Id. In light of this conflicting evidence,\\nthe court found that DRL failed to prove that Chen\\nachieved drug content uniformity. Id.\\n Given the nascent status of pharmaceutical films at the\\ntime of invention and the limited knowledge of drying tech-\\nniques, the district court additionally found that a person\\nof ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine\\nthe prior art to achieve uniformity. Id. at *18. Moreover,\\nthe court found that a skilled artisan would not have been\\nmotivated to combine Schmidt and Chen with the tech-\\nniques in Strobush because Strobush did not address phar-\\nmaceutical films or film uniformity, but rather the surface\\ndefect called mottle. Id.\\n\\n30 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Finally, the district court found that secondary consid-\\nerations supported nonobviousness. The court considered\\nevidence that obtaining pharmaceutical film content uni-\\nformity was a long-felt need yet difficult to achieve, and the\\ncourt gave some credit to Aquestive’s work related to the\\n’514 patent in solving that need. Id. at *19. That credit\\nwas supported by several pieces of evidence. First, it was\\nundisputed that Aquestive was the first to receive FDA ap-\\nproval for a pharmaceutical film. Id. Second, several pa-\\npers cited the inventors’ work for demonstrating the value\\nand viability of pharmaceutical films. Id. Third, DRL itself\\nprepared an internal memorandum recognizing an\\nAquestive patent application that “yields uniform distribu-\\ntion of active,” “the advantageous factor which was not ap-\\npreciated by the prior arts.” Id. The court considered that\\nthe praise did not specifically address the patents in suit\\nand sometimes credited others as well, but the court none-\\ntheless gave the evidence some weight because it referred\\nto the claimed technology. Id. at *20.\\n Considering all the evidence, the district court held\\nthat DRL failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence\\nthat the asserted claims of the ’514 patent would have been\\nobvious. Id..\\n On appeal, DRL challenges several of the district\\ncourt’s factual findings. First, DRL argues that the court\\nclearly erred in finding the level of ordinary skill. Second,\\nDRL alleges that the court clearly erred in finding that\\nSchmidt and Chen do not teach drug content uniformity.\\nThird, DRL argues that the court clearly erred in dismiss-\\ning the teachings of Strobush. DRL also contends that sec-\\nondary considerations do not compel nonobviousness.\\n Indivior responds that the district court did not clearly\\nerr in its factual findings and that secondary considera-\\ntions support nonobviousness.\\n We agree with Indivior that the district court did not\\nclearly err in its factual findings or in its ultimate\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 31\\n\\n\\n\\njudgment of nonobviousness. First, we see no clear error\\nin the court adopting a compromise measure of the level of\\nordinary skill. Although the court found that the field of\\npharmaceutical films was just emerging at the time of in-\\nvention, it also found “merit to [DRL’s] argument that one\\nof ordinary skill would have a degree of access to some of\\nthe body of prior-art knowledge relating to coating and dry-\\ning.” Id. at *15. Consequently, the court found that a per-\\nson of ordinary skill would be on a team with an engineer\\nor scientist with experience in manufacturing films. Id.\\nDRL argues that the court clearly erred in settling on the\\nparticular amount of experience: 1–3 years according to\\nthe court, while DRL preferred 5–10 years. For its part,\\nIndivior’s expert testified that a skilled artisan would have\\na lower amount of experience with films since the pharma-\\nceutical film field was young and that, in his nearly 40\\nyears of experience, he had never seen a team assembled\\nwith the experience suggested by DRL. On this record, we\\nconclude that DRL’s nitpicking over the experience level of\\nthe skilled artisan fails to demonstrate clear error.\\n Next, we conclude that the district court did not clearly\\nerr in finding that Schmidt did not disclose uniform dried\\nfilms according to the claimed invention. As properly con-\\nstrued, claim 62 requires a specific type of drying, i.e., with-\\nout solely top air drying, to achieve a specific uniformity\\n“subsequent to casting and drying.” Schmidt disclosed nei-\\nther limitation. Indeed, DRL does not dispute that\\nSchmidt only disclosed a uniform wet film. The court thus\\ndid not clearly err in relying on Indivior’s expert’s testi-\\nmony that since film uniformity could be lost at the drying\\nstep, a uniform wet film does not disclose the claimed uni-\\nform dried films.\\n We conclude likewise with respect to Chen. While the\\nhuman study disclosed in Chen implicitly suggested that\\nthe films were uniform, Chen’s actual discussion of uni-\\nformity involved films lacking an active compound, J.A.\\n70211–12, and the defendants’ expert failed to produce\\n\\n32 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nuniform films using Chen’s method, DRL ’514 Decision,\\n2017 WL 3837312, at *17–18. The district court did not\\nclearly err in its weighing of this evidence, some of which\\nsupported DRL’s position and some of which went against\\nit.\\n Having found that neither Schmidt nor Chen taught\\nthe post-drying uniform films as claimed in the ’514 patent,\\nthe district court also found that a skilled artisan would\\nnot have been motivated to modify either reference in light\\nof Strobush with a reasonable expectation of success. Id.\\nat *18–19. DRL argues that this was also clear error. We\\ndisagree. Strobush did not address the uniformity of either\\npharmaceutical films or non-pharmaceutical films, but ra-\\nther a surface defect called mottle. Mottle may relate to\\nuniformity, but they are different properties. The court\\ncredited Indivior’s expert, who testified that lack of mottle\\nwould not imply that the film was uniform, id. at *18, and\\nDRL points to no clear error in that finding. Further, while\\nDRL emphasizes that Strobush taught bottom-drying, it\\ndoes not point us to any recognition in Strobush that bot-\\ntom-drying had any particularly advantageous features.\\nWhile the motivation of the skilled artisan need not be the\\nsame as that of the patentee, KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,\\n550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007), DRL’s proffered motivation is too\\ntenuous. We conclude that the district court did not clearly\\nerr in finding that a skilled artisan would not have been\\nmotivated to make a bottom-dried uniform pharmaceutical\\nfilm based on a teaching that was not emphasized in any\\nmeaningful way from a reference in a different field ad-\\ndressing a different problem.\\n That finding is further supported by the court’s deter-\\nmination that a skilled artisan would not have had a rea-\\nsonable expectation of success. DRL ’514 Decision, 2017\\nWL 3837312, at *19. In contrast to a “finite number of\\nidentified, predictable solutions,” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, the\\ncourt found that multiple factors throughout the manufac-\\nturing process contribute to the uniformity of\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 33\\n\\n\\n\\npharmaceutical films, that adjusting the various factors\\nwould have been unintuitive, and that the field was still\\nemergent at the time of invention. DRL ’514 Decision, 2017\\nWL 3837312, at *19. We also see no clear error in those\\nfindings.\\n We last consider DRL’s challenge to the district court’s\\nevaluation of the evidence of secondary considerations.\\n“[E]vidence of secondary considerations may often be the\\nmost probative and cogent evidence in the record. It may\\noften establish that an invention appearing to have been\\nobvious in light of the prior art was not.” Stratoflex, Inc. v.\\nAeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1983).\\nAquestive was the first to receive FDA approval for a phar-\\nmaceutical film and received praise for its work in achiev-\\ning uniform films, including by DRL itself. Having\\nconsidered DRL’s arguments, we conclude that the court\\ndid not clearly err in giving some weight to Indivior’s evi-\\ndence.\\n Because we conclude that DRL has not shown clear er-\\nror in the court’s findings, we affirm the district court’s\\njudgment that the asserted claims of the ’514 patent, as\\nproperly construed, would not have been obvious. As DRL\\nhas not argued the ’497 patent separately, we affirm the\\ncourt’s nonobviousness judgment with respect to that pa-\\ntent as well.\\n C. Infringement of the ’150 Patent\\n We turn to the parties’ appeals concerning the ’150 pa-\\ntent, beginning with Indivior’s appeal from the district\\ncourt’s judgment that DRL does not infringe the asserted\\nclaims of the ’150 patent. DRL ’150 Decision, 2017 WL\\n3782782, at *1, *5. Claim 1 recites that the film includes a\\nhydrophilic cellulosic polymer (“HCP”). DRL substituted\\npolyvinyl pyrrolidone (“PVP”) for HCP in its ANDA prod-\\nuct. Id. at *3. Indivior argued that DRL’s product in-\\nfringed under the doctrine of equivalents.\\n\\n34 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n The district court held that DRL’s product does not in-\\nfringe under the doctrine of equivalents because the ’150\\npatent disclosed PVP as an alternative to HCP but did not\\nclaim it, thereby dedicating it to the public. Id. at *4–5.\\n Indivior argues that the district court erred in conclud-\\ning that the disclosure-dedication rule applied. DRL disa-\\ngrees and contends that the district court’s analysis and\\njudgment were correct.\\n We agree with DRL that the disclosure-dedication rule\\napplies here and that the district court correctly found that\\nDRL’s product does not infringe under the doctrine of\\nequivalents. When a patentee discloses subject matter but\\ndoes not claim it, the patentee dedicates the unclaimed\\nsubject matter to the public and cannot recapture it\\nthrough the doctrine of equivalents. Johnson & Johnston\\nAssocs. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1054 (Fed. Cir.\\n2002) (en banc). The rule descends from the essential no-\\ntice function of claims. As the Supreme Court long ago ex-\\nplained, “[t]he public is notified and informed, by the most\\nsolemn act on the part of the patentee, that his claim to\\ninvention is for such and such an element or combination,\\nand for nothing more.” Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U.S. 354,\\n361 (1884).\\n Here, the patentee claimed a film comprising a polymer\\ncomponent made up of PEO and HCP but disclosed “useful\\nwater[-]soluble polymers,” including both HCP and other\\npolymers such as PVP. ’150 patent col. 15 ll. 44–60. The\\nspecification further describes examples of successful films\\nusing polymeric blends of PEO and PVP without HCP. Id.\\ncol. 51 l. 49–col. 52 l. 36 (example EA); see also id. col. 54 l.\\n51–col. 55 l. 11 (examples EI, EJ). These disclosures teach\\nthat PVP, an unclaimed embodiment, is an alternative to\\nHCP and thus is dedicated to the public and cannot be re-\\ncaptured through the doctrine of equivalents. See Johnson\\n& Johnston, 285 F.3d at 1054. We affirm the district\\ncourt’s judgment that DRL’s ANDA product, which\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 35\\n\\n\\n\\ncontains PVP but not HCP, does not infringe the asserted\\nclaims of the ’150 patent.\\n D. Validity of ’150 Patent\\n DRL alleges that the ’150 patent is invalid as obvious.\\nIts challenge to the district court’s judgment of nonobvious-\\nness focuses solely on whether the ’150 patent may\\nproperly claim priority from the earlier ’902 application.\\nThe priority question turns on whether the ’902 application\\nprovides an adequate written description of the claims of\\nthe ’150 patent. See Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107\\nF.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Under 35 U.S.C.\\n§ 112, “[t]he specification shall contain a written descrip-\\ntion of the invention.” The test for adequate written de-\\nscription “is whether the disclosure of the application relied\\nupon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the\\ninventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of\\nthe filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598\\nF.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The disclosure\\nmust demonstrate that the patentee truly invented the\\nsubject matter encompassed by the claims. Whether a\\nclaim satisfies the written description requirement is a\\nquestion of fact. Id..\\n As relevant to this issue, claim 1 of the ’150 patent re-\\ncites a pharmaceutical film with: (1) “at least one water-\\nsoluble polymer component consisting of [PEO] in combi-\\nnation with a[n] [HCP]”; wherein (2) “the water-soluble\\npolymer component comprises greater than 75% [PEO] and\\nup to 25% [HCP]”; (3) the PEO comprises at least one L-\\nPEO and at least one H-PEO; and (4) the L-PEO “com-\\nprises about 60% or more in the polymer component.” ’150\\npatent col. 57 ll. 35–54.\\n The district court held that the ’150 patent properly\\nclaimed priority from the ’902 application. In making that\\ndetermination, the court relied primarily on the following\\npassage from the ’902 application:\\n\\n36 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n For instance, certain film properties, such as fast\\n dissolution rates and high tear resistance, may be\\n attained by combining small amounts of high mo-\\n lecular weight PEOs with larger amounts of lower\\n molecular weight PE[O]s. Desirably, such composi-\\n tions contain about 60% or greater levels of the\\n lower molecular weight PEO in the PEO-blend pol-\\n ymer component.\\n To balance the properties of adhesion prevention,\\n fast dissolution rate, and good tear resistance, de-\\n sirable film compositions may include about 50% to\\n 75% low molecular weight PEO, optionally com-\\n bined with a small amount of a high molecular\\n weight PEO, with the remainder of the polymer\\n component containing a hydrophilic cellulosic poly-\\n mer (HPC or HPMC).\\nDRL ’150 Decision, 2017 WL 3782782, at *6 (emphases\\nadded) (quoting J.A. 70035). The court interpreted the\\nterm “polymer component” to refer to all polymers in the\\nformulation, including L-PEO, H-PEO, and any HCP. Id.\\nTogether with example formulations listed in the ’902 ap-\\nplication, the court found that this passage provided ade-\\nquate support for the ’150 patent’s priority claim. Id. at *6.\\n On appeal, DRL argues that the district court clearly\\nerred in finding that the ’902 application provided written\\ndescription support for the asserted claims of the ’150 pa-\\ntent. According to DRL, the ’902 application fails to de-\\nscribe the claimed composition with the specificity of the\\n’150 patent claims.\\n Indivior responds that the ’902 application reasonably\\nconveys to a skilled artisan that the inventor invented and\\ndisclosed the claimed films as of the application’s filing\\ndate.\\n We agree with Indivior that the district court did not\\nclearly err in finding that the ’902 application provides\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 37\\n\\n\\n\\nadequate written description support for the asserted\\nclaims of the ’150 patent. To obtain certain desirable film\\nproperties, the ’902 application recommends that films\\nshould combine small amounts of H-PEO with larger\\namounts of L-PEO, and desirably the films should have at\\nleast 60% L-PEO “in the PEO-blend polymer component.”\\nJ.A. 70035. Considering a broader set of properties, the\\napplication prescribes 50–75% L-PEO with the balance of\\nthe “polymer component” being H-PEO and HCP. Id. The\\napplication also discloses multiple example formulations\\nwith varying levels of L-PEO, H-PEO, and HCP. The court\\ndid not clearly err in finding that these disclosures would\\nconvey to a skilled artisan the claimed films with a polymer\\ncomponent containing at least 75% PEO, at least 60% L-\\nPEO, some H-PEO, and up to 25% HCP.\\n Addressing only the examples, DRL argues that no em-\\nbodiment disclosed in the ’902 application has the precise\\ncombination of L-PEO, H-PEO, and HCP claimed in the\\n’150 patent. It analogizes this case to Purdue Pharma L.P.\\nv. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000). There, we\\nconsidered a claim to a formulation characterized by a cer-\\ntain sustained release ratio. Id. at 1322–23. However, the\\nspecification never indicated that the ratio was “an im-\\nportant defining quality of the formulation, nor d[id] the\\ndisclosure even motivate one to calculate the ratio.” Id. at\\n1327. By claiming a characteristic of the formulation that\\nwas “not discussed even in passing in the disclosure,” the\\npatentee ran afoul of the written description requirement,\\nand we thus affirmed the district court’s judgment of inva-\\nlidity. Id. at 1327, 1329. Here, however, the ’902 applica-\\ntion does direct a skilled artisan to the claimed polymer\\ncomponent. Consistent with the ’150 patent claims, the ap-\\nplication discloses that a polymer component with 60% L-\\nPEO has desirable properties and that the remainder of the\\ncomponent may include H-PEO and HCP. The district\\ncourt did not clearly err in finding that these disclosures\\nsupported the ’150 patent claims.\\n\\n38 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n DRL suggests that the ’902 application does not dis-\\nclose that the polymer component comprises 60% L-PEO\\nbecause the application in the relevant sentence refers only\\nto the “PEO-blend polymer component” comprising 60% L-\\nPEO. DRL Appellant Br. 56–57 (emphasis added). DRL\\nindicates that the “PEO-blend polymer component” in-\\ncludes only PEO and not an HCP. But it provides no evi-\\ndence or reasoning in support of that interpretation, and\\nthe application’s disclosure is to the contrary. For each ex-\\nample formulation including an HCP, percentages for L-\\nPEO and H-PEO are shown for the entire polymer compo-\\nnent, and never for just the PEO part. J.A. 70085. We\\nthink “PEO-blend polymer component” simply refers to a\\npolymer component containing a PEO blend and is not ex-\\nclusive of other ingredients. Accordingly, we conclude that\\nthe district court did not clearly err in interpreting “poly-\\nmer component” to consistently include all the polymers in\\nthe formulation.\\n In sum, the ’902 application discloses films with vary-\\ning amounts of L-PEO, H-PEO, and HCP, describes films\\nwith 60% L-PEO as having desirable properties, and states\\nthat the remainder of the polymer component apart from\\nL-PEO may include H-PEO and HCP. This disclosure of\\nthe ’902 application reasonably conveyed to a skilled arti-\\nsan the films claimed in the ’150 patent. The specification\\nneed not recite the claimed invention in haec verba. Ariad,\\n598 F.3d at 1352. We affirm the district court’s holding\\nthat the ’150 patent is entitled to the priority date of the\\n’902 application. As DRL makes no other challenge to the\\ncourt’s judgment of nonobviousness, we affirm that holding\\nas well.\\n E. Validity of ’832 Patent\\n We last address Indivior’s challenge to the district\\ncourt’s judgment that claims 15–19 are invalid as obvious.\\nWatson Decision, 2016 WL 3186659, at *11. In a parallel\\ninter partes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 39\\n\\n\\n\\nBoard held claims 15–19 unpatentable as anticipated and\\nobvious, BioDelivery, 2015 WL 4045328, at *16, which we\\naffirmed, 667 F. App’x 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Indivior argues\\nthat the Board’s unpatentability decision and our subse-\\nquent affirmance moot the parties’ dispute over the validity\\nof claims 15–19 and requests vacatur of the district court’s\\njudgment of invalidity. No party raises any objection to va-\\ncatur.\\n Indivior argues that, “in general, when a claim is can-\\ncelled, the patentee loses any cause of action based on that\\nclaim, and any pending litigation in which the claims are\\nasserted becomes moot.” Indivior Cross-Appellant Br. 89\\n(quoting Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 721 F.3d\\n1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). We agree that the Board’s\\ndecision and our affirmance mooted any dispute over the\\ndistrict court’s decision regarding claims 15–19 of the ’832\\npatent. We also agree that vacatur is proper because moot-\\nness was not caused by Indivior’s voluntary action. See\\nU.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S.\\n18, 24–25 (1994). Indeed, Indivior opposed the inter partes\\nreview, appealed the decision, and sought review en banc.\\nNo party contends on appeal that vacatur would be inap-\\npropriate in these circumstances.\\n CONCLUSION\\n We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments\\nbut find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we\\naffirm the district court’s judgments that DRL and Alvogen\\ndo not infringe the ’514 patent, that Watson does infringe\\nthe ’514 patent, and that Watson, Teva, and DRL failed to\\nprove that the ’514 patent is invalid. We likewise affirm\\nthe court’s judgment that DRL does not infringe the ’150\\npatent, and that DRL failed to prove that the ’150 patent is\\ninvalid. We vacate the court’s decision that claims 15–19\\nof the ’832 patent are invalid as obvious.\\n AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART\\n\\n40 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n COSTS\\n No costs.\\n\\nINDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A. 41\\n\\n\\n\\n APPENDIX\\n’514 Patent Claim 62\\n 62. A drug delivery composition comprising:\\n (i) a cast film comprising a flowable water-soluble\\n or water swellable film-forming matrix comprising\\n one or more substantially water soluble or water\\n swellable polymers; and a desired amount of at\\n least one active;\\n wherein said matrix has a viscosity sufficient to aid\\n in substantially maintaining non-self-aggregating\\n uniformity of the active in the matrix;\\n (ii) a particulate active substantially uniformly sta-\\n tioned in the matrix; and\\n (iii) a taste-masking agent selected from the group\\n consisting of flavors, sweeteners, flavor enhancers,\\n and combinations thereof to provide taste-masking\\n of the active;\\n wherein the particulate active has a particle size of\\n 200 microns or less and said flowable water-soluble\\n or water swellable film-forming matrix is capable\\n of being dried without loss of substantial uniformity\\n in the stationing of said particulate active therein;\\n and\\n wherein the uniformity subsequent to casting and\\n drying of the matrix is measured by substantially\\n equally sized individual unit doses which do not\\n vary by more than 10% of said desired amount of\\n said at least one active.\\n’514 patent col. 73 l. 48–col. 74 l. 9 (emphasis added).\\n’150 Patent Claim 1\\n 1. A mucosally-adhesive water-soluble film product\\n comprising:\\n\\n42 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n an analgesic opiate pharmaceutical active; and\\n at least one water-soluble polymer component con-\\n sisting of polyethylene oxide in combination with a\\n hydrophilic cellulosic polymer;\\n wherein:\\n the water-soluble polymer component comprises\\n greater than 75% polyethylene oxide and up to 25%\\n hydrophilic cellulosic polymer;\\n the polyethylene oxide comprises one or more low\\n molecular weight polyethylene oxides and one or\\n more higher molecular weight polyethylene oxides,\\n the molecular weight of the low molecular weight\\n polyethylene oxide being in the range 100,000 to\\n 300,000 and the molecular weight of the higher mo-\\n lecular weight polyethylene oxide being in the\\n range 600,000 to 900,000; and\\n the polyethylene oxide of low molecular weight\\n comprises about 60% or more in the polymer com-\\n ponent.\\n’150 patent col. 57 ll. 37–54.\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n INDIVIOR INC., FKA RECKITT BENCKISER\\n PHARMACEUTICALS INC., INDIVIOR UK\\nLIMITED, FKA RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,\\n AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC., FKA\\n MONOSOL RX, LLC,\\n Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\nDR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A., DR. REDDY'S\\nLABORATORIES INC., WATSON LABORATORIES\\n INC., ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC., TEVA\\n PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,\\n Defendants-Appellants\\n\\n PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., INTELGENX\\n TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,\\n Defendants\\n ______________________\\n\\n2017-2587, 2018-1010, 2018-1058, 2018-1062, 2018-1114,\\n 2018-1115, 2018-1176, 2018-1177\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Delaware in Nos. 1:13-cv-01674-RGA, 1:14-cv-\\n00422-RGA, 1:14-cv-01451-RGA, 1:14-cv-01574-RGA, 1:16-\\ncv-00178-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.\\n\\n -------------------------------------------------------------\\n\\n2 INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n INDIVIOR INC., FKA RECKITT BENCKISER\\n PHARMACEUTICALS INC., INDIVIOR UK\\nLIMITED, FKA RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,\\n AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n ALVOGEN PINE BROOK, LLC,\\n Defendant-Cross-Appellant\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1949, 2018-2045\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\nDistrict of Delaware in Nos. 1:15-cv-00477-RGA, 1:15-cv-\\n01016-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.\\n ______________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3496,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4646151,"string":"4,646,151"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO., LTD., NAC Group Limited, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. v. United States"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-15"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"2018-2298"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Reyna, Wallach, Taranto\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"WALLACH, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO., LTD.,\\n NAC GROUP LIMITED,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n UNITED STATES,\\n Defendant-Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-2298\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Court of International\\nTrade in No. 1:17-cv-00257-RWG, Senior Judge Richard W.\\nGoldberg.\\n ______________________\\n\\n SEALED OPINION ISSUED: July 15, 2019\\n PUBLIC OPINION ISSUED: August 7, 2019 *\\n ______________________\\n\\n GREGORY S. MENEGAZ, DeKieffer & Horgan, PLLC,\\nWashington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also\\nrepresented by JAMES KEVIN HORGAN, ALEXANDRA H.\\nSALZMAN.\\n\\n SONIA MARIE ORFIELD, Commercial Litigation Branch,\\n\\n\\n * This opinion was originally filed under seal and has\\nbeen unsealed in full.\\n\\f2 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nCivil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-\\nington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also repre-\\nsented by JOSEPH H. HUNT, JEANNE DAVIDSON, PATRICIA M.\\nMCCARTHY; CATHERINE D. MILLER, Office of Chief Counsel\\nfor Trade Enforcement and Compliance, United States De-\\npartment of Commerce, Washington, DC.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before REYNA, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.\\nWALLACH, Circuit Judge.\\n Appellants Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd.\\n(“Kangtai Chemical”) and NAC Group Limited (“NAC”) (to-\\ngether, “Kangtai”) appeal from the opinion and order of the\\nU.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) dismissing its\\ncomplaint. The CIT held, inter alia, that it lacked jurisdic-\\ntion under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) (2012) to consider three\\ncounts raised in Kangtai’s Complaint relating to certain\\nantidumping duties. See Juancheng Kangtai Chem. Co. v.\\nUnited States (Kangtai), 322 F. Supp. 3d 1351, 1356 (Ct.\\nInt’l Trade 2018). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28\\nU.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). We affirm.\\n BACKGROUND\\n I. Legal Framework\\n By statute, antidumping duties may be imposed on\\n“foreign merchandise . . . being, or . . . likely to be, sold in\\nthe United States at less than its fair value.” 19 U.S.C.\\n§ 1673 (2012). 1 Following an investigation into imposition\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 In June 2015, Congress amended the statutes con-\\ntaining the antidumping provisions. See Trade Preferences\\nExtension Act of 2015 (“TPEA”), Pub. L. No. 114-27,\\n§§ 501–507, 129 Stat. 362, 383–88. Because the relevant\\ndeterminations were made after the TPEA became effec-\\ntive, the TPEA applies. See Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action\\n\\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 3\\n\\n\\n\\nof antidumping duties, if the U.S. Department of Com-\\nmerce (“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade\\nCommission have made the requisite findings, Commerce\\n“shall publish an antidumping duty order” directing U.S.\\nCustoms and Border Protection (“Customs”) officers to as-\\nsess duties on imports of goods covered by the investiga-\\ntion. Id. § 1673e(a); see id. §§ 1673, 1673a, 1677(1). Each\\nyear after the order is published, if Commerce receives a\\nrequest for an administrative review of the antidumping\\nduty order, it shall conduct such a review. Id.\\n§ 1675(a)(1)(B).\\n When conducting these reviews, Commerce typically\\nmust “determine the individual weighted average dumping\\nmargin for each known exporter and producer of the sub-\\nject merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(1); see Viet I-Mei\\nFrozen Foods Co. v. United States, 839 F.3d 1099, 1101\\n(Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that, when “it is not practical\\nto determine individual rates for each” exporter or pro-\\nducer, “Commerce generally selects a subset of companies\\nfor mandatory review and determines an individual dump-\\ning rate for each of those mandatory respondents”). “A\\ndumping margin reflects the amount by which the normal\\nvalue (the price a producer charges in its home market) ex-\\nceeds the export price (the price of the product in the\\nUnited States) or constructed export price.” SolarWorld\\nAms., Inc. v. United States, 910 F.3d 1216, 1220 (Fed. Cir.\\n2018) (internal quotation marks, footnote, and citation\\nomitted); see 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A). 2\\n\\n\\n\\nComm. v. United States (AHSTAC), 802 F.3d 1339, 1348–\\n52 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We cite to the U.S. Code version of the\\nstatute as there are no material changes in the TPEA for\\npurposes of this appeal.\\n 2 “When the foreign producer or exporter sells di-\\nrectly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States,\\nCommerce uses [export price] as the U.S. price for purposes\\n\\f4 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n The statute explains how “normal value shall be deter-\\nmined” “[i]n order to achieve a fair comparison with the ex-\\nport price or constructed export price.” 19 U.S.C.\\n§ 1677b(a). Relevant here, Commerce has found the Peo-\\nple’s Republic of China (“China”) is a nonmarket economy\\ncountry. See SolarWorld, 910 F.3d at 1220 n.3. A “non-\\nmarket economy country” is “any foreign country that\\n[Commerce] determines does not operate on market princi-\\nples of cost or pricing structures, so that sales of merchan-\\ndise in such country do not reflect the fair value of the\\nmerchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(18)(A). “In antidumping\\nduty proceedings involving merchandise from a non-mar-\\nket economy, . . . Commerce presumes that all respondents\\nare government-controlled and[,] therefore[,] subject to a\\nsingle country-wide rate,” unless respondents “rebut this\\npresumption” to demonstrate eligibility for separate rates,\\ni.e., “individual dumping margins . . . for each known ex-\\nporter or producer.” Dongtai Peak Honey Indus. Co. v.\\nUnited States, 777 F.3d 1343, 1349–50 (Fed. Cir. 2015)\\n(footnote omitted) (citing, inter alia, 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-\\n1(c)(1)).\\n II. Procedural History\\n In 2005, Commerce published an antidumping duty or-\\nder on chlorinated isocyanurates (“subject merchandise”)\\nfrom China. Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s\\nRepublic of China (AD Order), 70 Fed. Reg. 36,561, 36,561–\\n\\n\\nof the comparison.” Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 243\\nF.3d 1301, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). “How-\\never, where a sale is made by a foreign producer or exporter\\nto an affiliated purchaser in the United States, the statute\\nprovides for use of [constructed export price] as the [U.S.]\\nprice for purposes of the comparison.” Id. (citation omit-\\nted). The calculation of constructed export price, as com-\\npared to export price, is subject to certain “[a]dditional\\nadjustments.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d).\\n\\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 5\\n\\n\\n\\n62 (Dep’t of Commerce June 24, 2005) (antidumping duty\\norder). 3 Related to this appeal, Commerce conducted its\\nninth administrative review (“AR 9”) of the AD Order, cov-\\nering the period of review (“POR”) from June 1, 2013,\\nthrough May 31, 2014, and tenth administrative review\\n(“AR 10”), covering the POR from June 1, 2014, through\\nMay 31, 2015. See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the Peo-\\nple’s Republic of China (AR 10 Final Results), 82 Fed. Reg.\\n4852, 4852 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 17, 2017) (final admin.\\nreview); Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Re-\\npublic of China (AR 9 Final Results), 81 Fed. Reg. 1167,\\n1167 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 11, 2016) (final admin. re-\\nview). In the AR 9 Final Results, Commerce assigned\\nKangtai Chemical, which had been selected by Commerce\\nas a mandatory respondent, a 0% antidumping duty mar-\\ngin. 81 Fed. Reg. at 1168. In the AR 10 Final Results,\\nCommerce assigned Kangtai Chemical, which again had\\nbeen selected by Commerce as a mandatory respondent, an\\nantidumping duty margin of 35.05%. 82 Fed. Reg. at 4852.\\nRegarding both AR 9 and AR 10, Commerce explained that\\nfor the exporters individually reviewed, such as Kangtai\\nChemical, Commerce would require cash deposits at the\\nantidumping duty margin rate calculated, but that “for all\\n[Chinese] exporters of subject merchandise that have not\\nbeen found to be eligible for a separate rate, the cash de-\\nposit rate will be the [China]-wide rate of 285.63[%].” AR\\n10 Final Results, 82 Fed. Reg. at 4853; AR 9 Final Results,\\n81 Fed. Reg. at 1168.\\n Following the AR 9 Final Results, in which Kangtai re-\\nceived a zero percent antidumping duty margin, Commerce\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 The subject merchandise includes “derivatives of\\ncyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones,”\\nthat have “three primary chemical compositions” and “are\\navailable in powder, granular, and tableted forms.” AD Or-\\nder, 70 Fed. Reg. at 36,561.\\n\\f6 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nissued liquidation instructions to Customs. See J.A. 101–\\n04. The AR 9 liquidation instructions ordered Customs to\\nassess a rate of $0.00 per metric ton on all shipments of\\nsubject merchandise “exported by [Kangtai Chemical], im-\\nported by or sold to” NAC, “and entered, or withdrawn from\\nwarehouse, for consumption during the period 06/01/2013\\nthrough 05/31/2014,” which is the POR covered by AR 9.\\nJ.A. 102 (emphasis added). The AR 10 liquidation instruc-\\ntions similarly set liquidation rates in U.S. dollars per met-\\nric ton for shipments of subject merchandise based on the\\nmargins calculated in the AR 10 Final Results “exported by\\n[Kangtai Chemical], imported by or sold to [specified pur-\\nchasers, not including NAC], and entered, or withdrawn\\nfrom warehouse, for consumption during the period\\n06/01/2014 through 05/31/2015.” J.A. 106 For entries\\nmade during the POR associated with AR 10 “not covered”\\nby the above instruction in the AR 10 liquidation instruc-\\ntions (thereby including exports by Kangtai Chemical im-\\nported by NAC), Commerce instructed Customs to “assess\\nantidumping duties at the [China]-wide rate” of 285.63%.\\nJ.A. 106.\\n In October 2017, Kangtai filed its Complaint against\\nthe Government. J.A. 58. Kangtai asserted jurisdiction\\npursuant to § 1581(i)(2) and (i)(4). J.A. 59. According to\\nKangtai, Commerce improperly instructed Customs to as-\\nsess an antidumping duty margin on eighteen of Kangtai’s\\nsubject merchandise entries at a rate higher than the zero\\npercent rate calculated for Kangtai’s entries in the AR 9\\nFinal Results. See J.A. 58, 63. Kangtai alleged that it\\nmade “sales [that] were invoiced at the end of” the POR as-\\nsociated with AR 9, but that the subject merchandise “en-\\ntered the United States in the subsequent review,” i.e.,\\nduring the POR associated with AR 10. J.A. 58. According\\nto Kangtai, Commerce “liquidated eleven of these entries,”\\nbut seven remained unliquidated. J.A. 63. Kangtai al-\\nleged, inter alia, that: (1) Commerce “acted contrary to law\\nwhen it assessed individual sales [at] an [antidumping\\n\\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 7\\n\\n\\n\\nduty] rate that was higher than the rate calculated upon\\nindividual review” in AR 9, J.A. 63–64 (Count I); (2) Com-\\nmerce’s “decision to treat the sales as if they were made by\\nthe [China-wide entity] is unsupported by substantial evi-\\ndence” because “those sales were made by Kangtai,” J.A. 64\\n(Count II); and (3) Commerce’s “decision that the NAC en-\\ntries were not reviewed merely because they entered in the\\nPOR subsequent to the AR in which they were reviewed\\nwas unsupported by substantial evidence as well as arbi-\\ntrary and capricious,” J.A. 64 (Count III). 4\\n The CIT held it lacked jurisdiction under § 1581(i).\\nKangtai, 322 F. Supp. 3d at 1356. The CIT explained\\n“Kangtai cannot make out a [§] 1581(i) claim as the essence\\nof its challenge remains directed at Commerce’s use of sales\\nand entries in its antidumping duty calculations,” and this\\ntype of claim is properly brought under a different jurisdic-\\ntional provision, specifically § 1581(c). Id. at 1358. It\\ntherefore dismissed Counts I–III of Kangtai’s Complaint\\nand entered final judgment in favor of the Government.\\nSee id. at 1356, 1360.\\n DISCUSSION\\n I. Standard of Review and Legal Standard\\n We review the CIT’s jurisdictional determination de\\nnovo. See Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1186,\\n1191 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “Although we review the decisions\\n\\n\\n 4 The Complaint also alleged, in Count IV, that Com-\\nmerce’s “decision to liquidate entries prior to the expiry of\\nthe [sixty] days permitted by law to lodge an appeal was\\nunlawful and an unreasonable litigation tactic,” thereby\\nchallenging Commerce’s policy to issue liquidation instruc-\\ntions to Customs within fifteen days of publication of its\\nfinal results of an administrative review. J.A. 65. Kangtai\\ndid not challenge the CIT’s dismissal of Count IV in this\\nappeal. See generally Appellants’ Br.\\n\\f8 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nof the CIT de novo, we give great weight to the informed\\nopinion of the CIT and it is nearly always the starting point\\nof our analysis.” Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States,\\n810 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation\\nmarks, brackets, ellipsis, and citation omitted). “The party\\ninvoking the CIT’s jurisdiction bears the burden of estab-\\nlishing it. However, we must accept well-pleaded factual\\nallegations as true and must draw all reasonable infer-\\nences in favor of the claimant.” Hutchison Quality Furni-\\nture, Inc. v. United States, 827 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir.\\n2016) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations\\nomitted). In ascertaining whether jurisdiction is proper,\\nwe look to “the true nature of the action.” Norsk Hydro\\nCan., Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir.\\n2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\\n The CIT’s “jurisdiction is enumerated in 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1581(a)–(j).” Carbon Activated Corp. v. United States,\\n791 F.3d 1312, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1581(a)–(j). Subsections (c) and (i) of § 1581 are relevant\\nto this appeal. Section 1581(c) confers on the CIT “exclu-\\nsive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced under”\\n19 U.S.C. § 1516a (2012), 5 which includes Commerce’s an-\\nnual administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders.\\nSee 19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii), 1675(a)(2)(C). Section\\n1581(i) sets forth the CIT’s so-called “residual jurisdiction.”\\nCarbon Activated, 791 F.3d at 1314 (internal quotation\\nmarks omitted). Under this section, the CIT has\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 Congress amended § 1581(c) through Title IV of the\\nTrade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. See\\nEnforce and Protect Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-125,\\n§ 421(b), 130 Stat. 154, 168 (2016) (“EAPA”). EAPA ex-\\npanded the CIT’s § 1581(c) jurisdiction to include civil ac-\\ntions commenced under 19 U.S.C. § 1517 relating to\\nevasion of antidumping and countervailing duty orders, see\\nid., but those amendments are not relevant here.\\n\\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 9\\n\\n\\n\\n exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced\\n against the United States, its agencies, or its offic-\\n ers, that arises out of any law of the United States\\n providing for—\\n (1) revenue from imports or tonnage;\\n (2) tariffs, duties, fees, or other taxes on the\\n importation of merchandise for reasons\\n other than the raising of revenue;\\n (3) embargoes or other quantitative re-\\n strictions on the importation of merchan-\\n dise for reasons other than the protection\\n of the public health or safety; or\\n (4) administration and enforcement with\\n respect to the matters referred to in para-\\n graphs (1)–(3) of this subsection and sub-\\n sections (a)–(h) of [§ 1581].\\n28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) (emphases added).\\n The CIT’s residual jurisdiction “may not be invoked\\nwhen jurisdiction under another subsection of § 1581 is or\\ncould have been available, unless the remedy provided un-\\nder that other subsection would be manifestly inadequate.”\\nSunpreme, 892 F.3d at 1191 (citation omitted). “Where an-\\nother remedy is or could have been available, the party as-\\nserting § 1581(i) jurisdiction has the burden to show that\\nthe remedy would be manifestly inadequate.” Id. (citation\\nomitted). A remedy is manifestly inadequate if it is “an\\nexercise in futility,” meaning it is “incapable of producing\\nany result.” Hutchison, 827 F.3d at 1362 (internal quota-\\ntion marks and citation omitted).\\nII. The CIT Properly Dismissed Kangtai’s Claims for Lack\\n of Jurisdiction\\n The CIT dismissed Counts I–III of the Complaint for\\nlack of jurisdiction, explaining that “it is clear that the true\\nnature of Kangtai’s [C]omplaint aims to challenge\\n\\f10 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nCommerce’s evaluation of sales in AR 9 and entries in AR\\n10, a claim properly arising out of [§] 1581(c).” Kangtai,\\n322 F. Supp. 3d at 1356. According to the CIT, the Com-\\nplaint alleges “that Commerce imposed a liquidation rate\\nthat improperly considered already reported sales and en-\\ntries.” Id. at 1357. The CIT rejected Kangtai’s challenge\\n“that the sales made during [the ninth POR]—and consid-\\nered in AR 9—and then entered during [the tenth POR],\\nshould have been assigned the AR 9 rate but were improp-\\nerly liquidated at the AR 10 rate,” reasoning instead that\\n“those eighteen entries went unreported in AR 10, even\\nthough they were entered during [the tenth POR]” based\\non Kangtai’s failure to report them after being directed to\\ndo so by Commerce. Id. The CIT further determined that\\na remedy under § 1581(c) was not manifestly inadequate\\nbecause Kangtai was “on notice” that duties would be as-\\nsessed against its entries based on language in the AR 9\\nFinal Results and could have filed “a complaint challenging\\nthe results of AR 9.” Id. at 1358.\\n Kangtai argues “the CIT erroneously found that Kang-\\ntai’s Complaint challenged the AR 10 Final Results and\\nshould therefore have been brought under [§] 1581(c).” Ap-\\npellants’ Br. 20 (italics added) (capitalization modified).\\nRather, Kangtai maintains that its challenge is to Com-\\nmerce’s liquidation instructions, which it asserts improp-\\nerly imposed the China-wide entity liquidation rate of\\n285.63% “upon eighteen sales and the subsequent entries\\nthat were fully reported in AR 9.” Id. at 20–21. Kangtai\\nfurther avers that any remedy available to it under\\n§ 1581(c) “is manifestly inadequate” because Kangtai al-\\nready received a zero percent margin in the AR 9 Final Re-\\nsults, meaning “there was nothing to appeal” there, and\\nbecause filing a § 1581(c) action challenging the AR 10 Fi-\\nnal Results “would not save [its eighteen entries at issue]\\nfrom being liquidated at the [China]-wide rate.” Id. at 27.\\nKangtai’s analysis is incorrect.\\n\\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 11\\n\\n\\n\\n Kangtai could have sought relief under § 1581(c) be-\\ncause the true nature of Kangtai’s action is a challenge to\\nCommerce’s determination to assess antidumping duties\\non entries, rather than on sales, made during the relevant\\nPOR. In its Complaint, Kangtai alleges that “all eight-\\neen . . . entries were governed by AR 9 because the sales in\\nquestion were specifically reviewed and [antidumping\\nduty] margins calculated in AR 9; not AR 10.” J.A. 63 (em-\\nphasis added). According to Kangtai, Commerce improp-\\nerly determined these sales were not subject to the AR 9\\nrate because they were entered during the POR corre-\\nsponding to AR 10. See J.A. 58 (“Only because the sales\\nwere invoiced at the end of that period of review (and thus\\nlawfully included therein) but entered the United States in\\nthe subsequent review were they actually assessed a puni-\\ntive[ly] high [antidumping duty] margin that bore no rela-\\ntion to the actual[ly] calculated [antidumping duty] rate for\\nthose very sales.”). The statute requires Commerce to con-\\nduct administrative reviews and “determine” the amount\\nof antidumping duties, upon request, for “12-month pe-\\nriod[s].” 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(1). For antidumping duty pro-\\nceedings, “an administrative review under this section\\nnormally will cover, as appropriate, entries, exports, or\\nsales of the subject merchandise during the [twelve]\\nmonths immediately preceding the most recent anniver-\\nsary month.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.213(e)(1)(i) (2019) (emphases\\nadded). This regulation affords Commerce flexibility in de-\\nciding how to measure the twelve-month POR covered in\\nan administrative review, whether it be based on date of\\nentry, export, or sale. See id.\\n Here, Commerce repeatedly manifested its intent to\\nrely on the date of entry for its assessment of antidumping\\nduties. For instance, during AR 9, Commerce issued\\n\\f12 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nquestionnaires 6 asking Kangtai to “[r]eport each U.S. sale\\nof merchandise entered for consumption during the POR.”\\nJ.A. 124 (emphasis added). Although Commerce stated\\nthat “for [export price] sales” Kangtai could “report each\\ntransaction involving merchandise shipped during the\\nPOR,” that exception applied only “if [it] do[es] not know\\nthe entry dates.” J.A. 124. Then, in the preliminary results\\nof both AR 9 and AR 10, Commerce stated its intention to\\nassess antidumping duty rates on entries made during the\\nrelevant POR, rather than on sales. Chlorinated Isocyanu-\\nrates from the People’s Republic of China (AR 10 Prelimi-\\nnary Results), 81 Fed. Reg. 45,128, 45,129 (Dep’t of\\nCommerce July 12, 2016) (prelim. admin. review) (“Upon\\nissuing the final results of this review, [Commerce] shall\\ndetermine, and [Customs] shall assess, antidumping duties\\non all appropriate entries covered by this review.” (empha-\\nsis added) (footnote omitted)); Chlorinated Isocyanurates\\nfrom the People’s Republic of China (AR 9 Preliminary Re-\\nsults), 80 Fed. Reg. 39,060, 39,061 (Dep’t of Commerce July\\n8, 2015) (prelim. admin. review) (same). Although Com-\\nmerce used the phrase “appropriate entries covered by this\\nreview,” AR 10 Preliminary Results, 81 Fed. Reg. at 45,129;\\nAR 9 Preliminary Results, 80 Fed. Reg. at 39,061, we con-\\nclude this language is sufficiently clear to put Kangtai on\\n\\n\\n 6 “Commerce issues detailed nonmarket economy\\nquestionnaires to foreign respondents in the [administra-\\ntive review] proceedings to gather information from which\\nto calculate dumping margins.” AHSTAC, 802 F.3d at 1342\\nn.3 (citing 19 C.F.R. §§ 351.221, 351.301(c)(1)). “These\\nquestionnaires are divided into sections: Section A covers\\ngeneral corporate information, including corporate and\\nbusiness structure, affiliations with other companies, and\\nownership details; Section C covers U.S. sales data; and\\nSection D covers production data. Commerce may issue\\nsupplemental questionnaires if additional information is\\nrequired.” Id.\\n\\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 13\\n\\n\\n\\nnotice that Commerce intended that Customs assess duties\\non entries made during each relevant POR. This is because\\nthe respective preliminary results identify the relevant\\nPOR and must be read in context of the previously issued\\nquestionnaires discussed above. See AR 10 Preliminary\\nResults, 81 Fed. Reg. at 45,129 (identifying the POR as\\n“June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015”); AR 9 Preliminary\\nResults, 80 Fed. Reg. at 39,060 (identifying the POR as\\n“June 1, 2013, through May 31, 2014”). Indeed, Com-\\nmerce’s decision to rely on entries accords with its standard\\npractice. See Norsk Hydro, 472 F.3d at 1350 (“Commerce\\ntypically restricts its consideration to entries made during\\nthe one year [POR].”). 7\\n During the administrative proceedings, Kangtai did\\nnot directly challenge Commerce’s decision to rely on en-\\ntries, see Reply Br. 17–18; see also Oral Arg. at 0:11–1:10,\\nhttp://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=\\n2018-2298.mp3, even though it could have, see 19 C.F.R.\\n§§ 351.309(c)(1)(ii) (stating an interested party may submit\\na case brief with Commerce within “30 days after the date\\nof publication of the preliminary results of review”), (c)(2)\\n(“The case brief must present all arguments that continue\\nin the submitter’s view to be relevant to\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 In response to Commerce’s questionnaires, Kang-\\ntai reported sale date, rather than entry date. See, e.g.,\\nJ.A. 126, 141–44. Simply because Commerce accepted\\nKangtai’s responses and calculated antidumping duty mar-\\ngins based on sales made during the POR does not, on its\\nown, undermine the other indications that Commerce was\\nplanning to assess duties on entries. If Kangtai wanted to\\nchallenge Commerce’s decision to assess duties on entries\\non the basis that doing so would be at odds with its reliance\\non sales for calculation purposes, it could have raised that\\nissue to Commerce and then to the CIT in a challenge un-\\nder § 1581(c), as discussed below.\\n\\f14 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n[Commerce]’s . . . final results . . . .”). Accordingly, in the\\nAR 9 Final Results and AR 10 Final Results, Commerce\\nmaintained its position that Customs should assess duties\\n“on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise” made\\nduring the POR “in accordance with the final results.” AR\\n10 Final Results, 82 Fed. Reg. at 4852; see AR 9 Final Re-\\nsults, 81 Fed. Reg. at 1168 (providing that Customs should\\nassess duties “on all appropriate entries covered by this re-\\nview”). Because § 1581(c) confers on the CIT jurisdiction to\\nconsider challenges to Commerce’s assessment of anti-\\ndumping duties based on its determination during admin-\\nistrative reviews, see 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c); see also 19 U.S.C.\\n§§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii), 1675(a)(2)(C), Kangtai could have\\navailed itself of § 1581(c) jurisdiction by challenging Com-\\nmerce’s decision to assess margins on entries in either the\\nAR 9 Final Results or AR 10 Final Results. 8\\n Furthermore, Kangtai has failed to meet its burden of\\ndemonstrating that relief under § 1581(c) would have been\\nmanifestly inadequate. Not only could Kangtai have chal-\\nlenged Commerce’s decision to assess duties on entries in\\nthe AR 9 Final Results or the AR 10 Final Results, Kangtai\\nactually did file a complaint contesting the AR 10 Final Re-\\nsults. See Compl., Heze Huayi Chem. Co. v. United States,\\nNo. 1:17-cv-00032-RKM (Ct. Int’l Trade Feb. 15, 2017),\\nECF No. 7. However, in that litigation, Kangtai alleged\\nonly that Commerce improperly calculated its antidumping\\nduty rate, see id. ¶¶ 15–20 (arguing that Commerce im-\\nproperly selected a surrogate country and certain\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 In at least three cases, the CIT has considered sim-\\nilar challenges under its § 1581(c) jurisdiction. See\\nWatanabe Grp. v. United States, 34 C.I.T. 1545, 1548–49\\n(2010); Corus Staal BV v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 2d\\n1291, 1295, 1300–04 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005); Helmerich &\\nPayne, Inc. v. United States, 24 F. Supp. 2d 304, 306, 311–\\n13 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998).\\n\\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 15\\n\\n\\n\\nsurrogate financial ratios), but did not challenge Com-\\nmerce’s decision to assess duties on entries made during\\nthe POR, see generally id. When a party files an action\\nchallenging Commerce’s final results in an administrative\\nreview of an antidumping duty order, it may seek a statu-\\ntory injunction from the CIT, thereby preventing liquida-\\ntion of its entries while the litigation is pending. See 19\\nU.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2) (explaining the CIT “may enjoin the\\nliquidation of some or all entries of merchandise covered by\\na determination of . . . [Commerce] . . . upon a request by\\nan interested party for such relief and a proper showing\\nthat the requested relief should be granted under the cir-\\ncumstances”). Had Kangtai filed suit and alleged that\\nCommerce should have provided that its AR 9 and AR 10\\ndecisions applied to all entries on sales made during the\\nPOR, even if the entries occurred later, it could have timely\\nsought an injunction to prevent liquidation of all eighteen\\nentries of subject merchandise until the CIT could resolve\\nthe merits of Kangtai’s position. See id. Because filing an\\naction could have provided Kangtai the very relief it now\\nseeks—the prevention of liquidation at an improper rate,\\nsee J.A. 65—we cannot say that a remedy under § 1581(c)\\nwould have been “an exercise in futility” and therefore\\nmanifestly inadequate, Hutchison, 827 F.3d at 1362. Thus,\\nthe CIT lacked § 1581(i) jurisdiction over Counts I–III of\\nKangtai’s Complaint.\\n We find Kangtai’s counterargument that “the CIT mis-\\napplied the standard of review” and drew factual “infer-\\nences in favor of the” Government, rather than Kangtai,\\nunavailing. Appellants’ Br. 17 (capitalization modified).\\nSpecifically, Kangtai criticizes the CIT’s characterization\\nof Commerce’s request for information in its Section C\\nquestionnaire for U.S. sales, see id. at 17–18; however, the\\nCIT’s recitation of the facts simply quoted from Com-\\nmerce’s questionnaire, see Kangtai, 322 F. Supp. 3d at 1354\\n(“Commerce issued a questionnaire to Kangtai during AR 9\\nrequesting that Kangtai ‘prepare a separate computer data\\n\\f16 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nfile containing each sale made during the POR’ and\\n‘[r]eport each U.S. sale of merchandise entered for con-\\nsumption during the POR.’” (quoting J.A. 124)). We do not\\ndetect error in the CIT’s reliance on the record documents.\\nHere, the CIT properly recognized that Commerce’s Section\\nC questionnaire sought entry dates, and, alternatively, sale\\ndates. Although “only uncontroverted factual allegations\\nare accepted as true for purposes of” deciding a motion to\\ndismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Cedars-Si-\\nnai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573, 1583 (Fed. Cir.\\n1993) (citations omitted), it is certainly uncontested that\\nthe questionnaire contained those questions, see Kangtai,\\n322 F. Supp. 3d at 1354; J.A. 124.\\n Kangtai also argues “the CIT’s finding that ‘Kangtai’s\\nresponse attached an exhibit identifying sales and the cor-\\nresponding entry dates for those sales’ was clearly errone-\\nous.” Appellants’ Br. 18 (quoting Kangtai, 322 F. Supp. 3d\\nat 1354). Although the CIT erred when it made this finding\\nin the background section of its opinion because Kangtai’s\\nSection C questionnaire response did not provide entry\\ndates, see J.A. 126, 141–44, the CIT simply did not rely on\\nthis factual error as a material part of its legal analysis, see\\nKangtai, 322 F. Supp. 3d at 1356–59. Accordingly, we re-\\nject Kangtai’s contention.\\n CONCLUSION\\n We have considered Kangtai’s remaining arguments\\nand find them unpersuasive. The Final Judgment of the\\nU.S. Court of International Trade is\\n AFFIRMED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4423404/\", \"author_raw\": \"WALLACH, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"REYNA"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"WALLACH"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"TARANTO"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4646151/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO., LTD., NAC Group Limited, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-15\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO., LTD.,\n NAC GROUP LIMITED,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\n\n v.\n\n UNITED STATES,\n Defendant-Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2018-2298\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States Court of International\nTrade in No. 1:17-cv-00257-RWG, Senior Judge Richard W.\nGoldberg.\n ______________________\n\n SEALED OPINION ISSUED: July 15, 2019\n PUBLIC OPINION ISSUED: August 7, 2019 *\n ______________________\n\n GREGORY S. MENEGAZ, DeKieffer & Horgan, PLLC,\nWashington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also\nrepresented by JAMES KEVIN HORGAN, ALEXANDRA H.\nSALZMAN.\n\n SONIA MARIE ORFIELD, Commercial Litigation Branch,\n\n\n * This opinion was originally filed under seal and has\nbeen unsealed in full.\n\f2 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\nCivil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-\nington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also repre-\nsented by JOSEPH H. HUNT, JEANNE DAVIDSON, PATRICIA M.\nMCCARTHY; CATHERINE D. MILLER, Office of Chief Counsel\nfor Trade Enforcement and Compliance, United States De-\npartment of Commerce, Washington, DC.\n ______________________\n\n Before REYNA, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.\nWALLACH, Circuit Judge.\n Appellants Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd.\n(“Kangtai Chemical”) and NAC Group Limited (“NAC”) (to-\ngether, “Kangtai”) appeal from the opinion and order of the\nU.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) dismissing its\ncomplaint. The CIT held, inter alia, that it lacked jurisdic-\ntion under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) (2012) to consider three\ncounts raised in Kangtai’s Complaint relating to certain\nantidumping duties. See Juancheng Kangtai Chem. Co. v.\nUnited States (Kangtai), 322 F. Supp. 3d 1351, 1356 (Ct.\nInt’l Trade 2018). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28\nU.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). We affirm.\n BACKGROUND\n I. Legal Framework\n By statute, antidumping duties may be imposed on\n“foreign merchandise . . . being, or . . . likely to be, sold in\nthe United States at less than its fair value.” 19 U.S.C.\n§ 1673 (2012). 1 Following an investigation into imposition\n\n\n\n 1 In June 2015, Congress amended the statutes con-\ntaining the antidumping provisions. See Trade Preferences\nExtension Act of 2015 (“TPEA”), Pub. L. No. 114-27,\n§§ 501–507, 129 Stat. 362, 383–88. Because the relevant\ndeterminations were made after the TPEA became effec-\ntive, the TPEA applies. See Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action\n\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 3\n\n\n\nof antidumping duties, if the U.S. Department of Com-\nmerce (“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade\nCommission have made the requisite findings, Commerce\n“shall publish an antidumping duty order” directing U.S.\nCustoms and Border Protection (“Customs”) officers to as-\nsess duties on imports of goods covered by the investiga-\ntion. Id. § 1673e(a); see id. §§ 1673, 1673a, 1677(1). Each\nyear after the order is published, if Commerce receives a\nrequest for an administrative review of the antidumping\nduty order, it shall conduct such a review. Id.\n§ 1675(a)(1)(B).\n When conducting these reviews, Commerce typically\nmust “determine the individual weighted average dumping\nmargin for each known exporter and producer of the sub-\nject merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(1); see Viet I-Mei\nFrozen Foods Co. v. United States, 839 F.3d 1099, 1101\n(Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that, when “it is not practical\nto determine individual rates for each” exporter or pro-\nducer, “Commerce generally selects a subset of companies\nfor mandatory review and determines an individual dump-\ning rate for each of those mandatory respondents”). “A\ndumping margin reflects the amount by which the normal\nvalue (the price a producer charges in its home market) ex-\nceeds the export price (the price of the product in the\nUnited States) or constructed export price.” SolarWorld\nAms., Inc. v. United States, 910 F.3d 1216, 1220 (Fed. Cir.\n2018) (internal quotation marks, footnote, and citation\nomitted); see 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A). 2\n\n\n\nComm. v. United States (AHSTAC), 802 F.3d 1339, 1348–\n52 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We cite to the U.S. Code version of the\nstatute as there are no material changes in the TPEA for\npurposes of this appeal.\n 2 “When the foreign producer or exporter sells di-\nrectly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States,\nCommerce uses [export price] as the U.S. price for purposes\n\f4 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\n The statute explains how “normal value shall be deter-\nmined” “[i]n order to achieve a fair comparison with the ex-\nport price or constructed export price.” 19 U.S.C.\n§ 1677b(a). Relevant here, Commerce has found the Peo-\nple’s Republic of China (“China”) is a nonmarket economy\ncountry. See SolarWorld, 910 F.3d at 1220 n.3. A “non-\nmarket economy country” is “any foreign country that\n[Commerce] determines does not operate on market princi-\nples of cost or pricing structures, so that sales of merchan-\ndise in such country do not reflect the fair value of the\nmerchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(18)(A). “In antidumping\nduty proceedings involving merchandise from a non-mar-\nket economy, . . . Commerce presumes that all respondents\nare government-controlled and[,] therefore[,] subject to a\nsingle country-wide rate,” unless respondents “rebut this\npresumption” to demonstrate eligibility for separate rates,\ni.e., “individual dumping margins . . . for each known ex-\nporter or producer.” Dongtai Peak Honey Indus. Co. v.\nUnited States, 777 F.3d 1343, 1349–50 (Fed. Cir. 2015)\n(footnote omitted) (citing, inter alia, 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-\n1(c)(1)).\n II. Procedural History\n In 2005, Commerce published an antidumping duty or-\nder on chlorinated isocyanurates (“subject merchandise”)\nfrom China. Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s\nRepublic of China (AD Order), 70 Fed. Reg. 36,561, 36,561–\n\n\nof the comparison.” Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 243\nF.3d 1301, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). “How-\never, where a sale is made by a foreign producer or exporter\nto an affiliated purchaser in the United States, the statute\nprovides for use of [constructed export price] as the [U.S.]\nprice for purposes of the comparison.” Id. (citation omit-\nted). The calculation of constructed export price, as com-\npared to export price, is subject to certain “[a]dditional\nadjustments.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d).\n\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 5\n\n\n\n62 (Dep’t of Commerce June 24, 2005) (antidumping duty\norder). 3 Related to this appeal, Commerce conducted its\nninth administrative review (“AR 9”) of the AD Order, cov-\nering the period of review (“POR”) from June 1, 2013,\nthrough May 31, 2014, and tenth administrative review\n(“AR 10”), covering the POR from June 1, 2014, through\nMay 31, 2015. See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the Peo-\nple’s Republic of China (AR 10 Final Results), 82 Fed. Reg.\n4852, 4852 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 17, 2017) (final admin.\nreview); Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Re-\npublic of China (AR 9 Final Results), 81 Fed. Reg. 1167,\n1167 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 11, 2016) (final admin. re-\nview). In the AR 9 Final Results, Commerce assigned\nKangtai Chemical, which had been selected by Commerce\nas a mandatory respondent, a 0% antidumping duty mar-\ngin. 81 Fed. Reg. at 1168. In the AR 10 Final Results,\nCommerce assigned Kangtai Chemical, which again had\nbeen selected by Commerce as a mandatory respondent, an\nantidumping duty margin of 35.05%. 82 Fed. Reg. at 4852.\nRegarding both AR 9 and AR 10, Commerce explained that\nfor the exporters individually reviewed, such as Kangtai\nChemical, Commerce would require cash deposits at the\nantidumping duty margin rate calculated, but that “for all\n[Chinese] exporters of subject merchandise that have not\nbeen found to be eligible for a separate rate, the cash de-\nposit rate will be the [China]-wide rate of 285.63[%].” AR\n10 Final Results, 82 Fed. Reg. at 4853; AR 9 Final Results,\n81 Fed. Reg. at 1168.\n Following the AR 9 Final Results, in which Kangtai re-\nceived a zero percent antidumping duty margin, Commerce\n\n\n\n 3 The subject merchandise includes “derivatives of\ncyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones,”\nthat have “three primary chemical compositions” and “are\navailable in powder, granular, and tableted forms.” AD Or-\nder, 70 Fed. Reg. at 36,561.\n\f6 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\nissued liquidation instructions to Customs. See J.A. 101–\n04. The AR 9 liquidation instructions ordered Customs to\nassess a rate of $0.00 per metric ton on all shipments of\nsubject merchandise “exported by [Kangtai Chemical], im-\nported by or sold to” NAC, “and entered, or withdrawn from\nwarehouse, for consumption during the period 06/01/2013\nthrough 05/31/2014,” which is the POR covered by AR 9.\nJ.A. 102 (emphasis added). The AR 10 liquidation instruc-\ntions similarly set liquidation rates in U.S. dollars per met-\nric ton for shipments of subject merchandise based on the\nmargins calculated in the AR 10 Final Results “exported by\n[Kangtai Chemical], imported by or sold to [specified pur-\nchasers, not including NAC], and entered, or withdrawn\nfrom warehouse, for consumption during the period\n06/01/2014 through 05/31/2015.” J.A. 106 For entries\nmade during the POR associated with AR 10 “not covered”\nby the above instruction in the AR 10 liquidation instruc-\ntions (thereby including exports by Kangtai Chemical im-\nported by NAC), Commerce instructed Customs to “assess\nantidumping duties at the [China]-wide rate” of 285.63%.\nJ.A. 106.\n In October 2017, Kangtai filed its Complaint against\nthe Government. J.A. 58. Kangtai asserted jurisdiction\npursuant to § 1581(i)(2) and (i)(4). J.A. 59. According to\nKangtai, Commerce improperly instructed Customs to as-\nsess an antidumping duty margin on eighteen of Kangtai’s\nsubject merchandise entries at a rate higher than the zero\npercent rate calculated for Kangtai’s entries in the AR 9\nFinal Results. See J.A. 58, 63. Kangtai alleged that it\nmade “sales [that] were invoiced at the end of” the POR as-\nsociated with AR 9, but that the subject merchandise “en-\ntered the United States in the subsequent review,” i.e.,\nduring the POR associated with AR 10. J.A. 58. According\nto Kangtai, Commerce “liquidated eleven of these entries,”\nbut seven remained unliquidated. J.A. 63. Kangtai al-\nleged, inter alia, that: (1) Commerce “acted contrary to law\nwhen it assessed individual sales [at] an [antidumping\n\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 7\n\n\n\nduty] rate that was higher than the rate calculated upon\nindividual review” in AR 9, J.A. 63–64 (Count I); (2) Com-\nmerce’s “decision to treat the sales as if they were made by\nthe [China-wide entity] is unsupported by substantial evi-\ndence” because “those sales were made by Kangtai,” J.A. 64\n(Count II); and (3) Commerce’s “decision that the NAC en-\ntries were not reviewed merely because they entered in the\nPOR subsequent to the AR in which they were reviewed\nwas unsupported by substantial evidence as well as arbi-\ntrary and capricious,” J.A. 64 (Count III). 4\n The CIT held it lacked jurisdiction under § 1581(i).\nKangtai, 322 F. Supp. 3d at 1356. The CIT explained\n“Kangtai cannot make out a [§] 1581(i) claim as the essence\nof its challenge remains directed at Commerce’s use of sales\nand entries in its antidumping duty calculations,” and this\ntype of claim is properly brought under a different jurisdic-\ntional provision, specifically § 1581(c). Id. at 1358. It\ntherefore dismissed Counts I–III of Kangtai’s Complaint\nand entered final judgment in favor of the Government.\nSee id. at 1356, 1360.\n DISCUSSION\n I. Standard of Review and Legal Standard\n We review the CIT’s jurisdictional determination de\nnovo. See Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1186,\n1191 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “Although we review the decisions\n\n\n 4 The Complaint also alleged, in Count IV, that Com-\nmerce’s “decision to liquidate entries prior to the expiry of\nthe [sixty] days permitted by law to lodge an appeal was\nunlawful and an unreasonable litigation tactic,” thereby\nchallenging Commerce’s policy to issue liquidation instruc-\ntions to Customs within fifteen days of publication of its\nfinal results of an administrative review. J.A. 65. Kangtai\ndid not challenge the CIT’s dismissal of Count IV in this\nappeal. See generally Appellants’ Br.\n\f8 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\nof the CIT de novo, we give great weight to the informed\nopinion of the CIT and it is nearly always the starting point\nof our analysis.” Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States,\n810 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation\nmarks, brackets, ellipsis, and citation omitted). “The party\ninvoking the CIT’s jurisdiction bears the burden of estab-\nlishing it. However, we must accept well-pleaded factual\nallegations as true and must draw all reasonable infer-\nences in favor of the claimant.” Hutchison Quality Furni-\nture, Inc. v. United States, 827 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir.\n2016) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations\nomitted). In ascertaining whether jurisdiction is proper,\nwe look to “the true nature of the action.” Norsk Hydro\nCan., Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir.\n2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\n The CIT’s “jurisdiction is enumerated in 28 U.S.C.\n§ 1581(a)–(j).” Carbon Activated Corp. v. United States,\n791 F.3d 1312, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see 28 U.S.C.\n§ 1581(a)–(j). Subsections (c) and (i) of § 1581 are relevant\nto this appeal. Section 1581(c) confers on the CIT “exclu-\nsive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced under”\n19 U.S.C. § 1516a (2012), 5 which includes Commerce’s an-\nnual administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders.\nSee 19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii), 1675(a)(2)(C). Section\n1581(i) sets forth the CIT’s so-called “residual jurisdiction.”\nCarbon Activated, 791 F.3d at 1314 (internal quotation\nmarks omitted). Under this section, the CIT has\n\n\n\n 5 Congress amended § 1581(c) through Title IV of the\nTrade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. See\nEnforce and Protect Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-125,\n§ 421(b), 130 Stat. 154, 168 (2016) (“EAPA”). EAPA ex-\npanded the CIT’s § 1581(c) jurisdiction to include civil ac-\ntions commenced under 19 U.S.C. § 1517 relating to\nevasion of antidumping and countervailing duty orders, see\nid., but those amendments are not relevant here.\n\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 9\n\n\n\n exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced\n against the United States, its agencies, or its offic-\n ers, that arises out of any law of the United States\n providing for—\n (1) revenue from imports or tonnage;\n (2) tariffs, duties, fees, or other taxes on the\n importation of merchandise for reasons\n other than the raising of revenue;\n (3) embargoes or other quantitative re-\n strictions on the importation of merchan-\n dise for reasons other than the protection\n of the public health or safety; or\n (4) administration and enforcement with\n respect to the matters referred to in para-\n graphs (1)–(3) of this subsection and sub-\n sections (a)–(h) of [§ 1581].\n28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) (emphases added).\n The CIT’s residual jurisdiction “may not be invoked\nwhen jurisdiction under another subsection of § 1581 is or\ncould have been available, unless the remedy provided un-\nder that other subsection would be manifestly inadequate.”\nSunpreme, 892 F.3d at 1191 (citation omitted). “Where an-\nother remedy is or could have been available, the party as-\nserting § 1581(i) jurisdiction has the burden to show that\nthe remedy would be manifestly inadequate.” Id. (citation\nomitted). A remedy is manifestly inadequate if it is “an\nexercise in futility,” meaning it is “incapable of producing\nany result.” Hutchison, 827 F.3d at 1362 (internal quota-\ntion marks and citation omitted).\nII. The CIT Properly Dismissed Kangtai’s Claims for Lack\n of Jurisdiction\n The CIT dismissed Counts I–III of the Complaint for\nlack of jurisdiction, explaining that “it is clear that the true\nnature of Kangtai’s [C]omplaint aims to challenge\n\f10 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\nCommerce’s evaluation of sales in AR 9 and entries in AR\n10, a claim properly arising out of [§] 1581(c).” Kangtai,\n322 F. Supp. 3d at 1356. According to the CIT, the Com-\nplaint alleges “that Commerce imposed a liquidation rate\nthat improperly considered already reported sales and en-\ntries.” Id. at 1357. The CIT rejected Kangtai’s challenge\n“that the sales made during [the ninth POR]—and consid-\nered in AR 9—and then entered during [the tenth POR],\nshould have been assigned the AR 9 rate but were improp-\nerly liquidated at the AR 10 rate,” reasoning instead that\n“those eighteen entries went unreported in AR 10, even\nthough they were entered during [the tenth POR]” based\non Kangtai’s failure to report them after being directed to\ndo so by Commerce. Id. The CIT further determined that\na remedy under § 1581(c) was not manifestly inadequate\nbecause Kangtai was “on notice” that duties would be as-\nsessed against its entries based on language in the AR 9\nFinal Results and could have filed “a complaint challenging\nthe results of AR 9.” Id. at 1358.\n Kangtai argues “the CIT erroneously found that Kang-\ntai’s Complaint challenged the AR 10 Final Results and\nshould therefore have been brought under [§] 1581(c).” Ap-\npellants’ Br. 20 (italics added) (capitalization modified).\nRather, Kangtai maintains that its challenge is to Com-\nmerce’s liquidation instructions, which it asserts improp-\nerly imposed the China-wide entity liquidation rate of\n285.63% “upon eighteen sales and the subsequent entries\nthat were fully reported in AR 9.” Id. at 20–21. Kangtai\nfurther avers that any remedy available to it under\n§ 1581(c) “is manifestly inadequate” because Kangtai al-\nready received a zero percent margin in the AR 9 Final Re-\nsults, meaning “there was nothing to appeal” there, and\nbecause filing a § 1581(c) action challenging the AR 10 Fi-\nnal Results “would not save [its eighteen entries at issue]\nfrom being liquidated at the [China]-wide rate.” Id. at 27.\nKangtai’s analysis is incorrect.\n\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 11\n\n\n\n Kangtai could have sought relief under § 1581(c) be-\ncause the true nature of Kangtai’s action is a challenge to\nCommerce’s determination to assess antidumping duties\non entries, rather than on sales, made during the relevant\nPOR. In its Complaint, Kangtai alleges that “all eight-\neen . . . entries were governed by AR 9 because the sales in\nquestion were specifically reviewed and [antidumping\nduty] margins calculated in AR 9; not AR 10.” J.A. 63 (em-\nphasis added). According to Kangtai, Commerce improp-\nerly determined these sales were not subject to the AR 9\nrate because they were entered during the POR corre-\nsponding to AR 10. See J.A. 58 (“Only because the sales\nwere invoiced at the end of that period of review (and thus\nlawfully included therein) but entered the United States in\nthe subsequent review were they actually assessed a puni-\ntive[ly] high [antidumping duty] margin that bore no rela-\ntion to the actual[ly] calculated [antidumping duty] rate for\nthose very sales.”). The statute requires Commerce to con-\nduct administrative reviews and “determine” the amount\nof antidumping duties, upon request, for “12-month pe-\nriod[s].” 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(1). For antidumping duty pro-\nceedings, “an administrative review under this section\nnormally will cover, as appropriate, entries, exports, or\nsales of the subject merchandise during the [twelve]\nmonths immediately preceding the most recent anniver-\nsary month.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.213(e)(1)(i) (2019) (emphases\nadded). This regulation affords Commerce flexibility in de-\nciding how to measure the twelve-month POR covered in\nan administrative review, whether it be based on date of\nentry, export, or sale. See id.\n Here, Commerce repeatedly manifested its intent to\nrely on the date of entry for its assessment of antidumping\nduties. For instance, during AR 9, Commerce issued\n\f12 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\nquestionnaires 6 asking Kangtai to “[r]eport each U.S. sale\nof merchandise entered for consumption during the POR.”\nJ.A. 124 (emphasis added). Although Commerce stated\nthat “for [export price] sales” Kangtai could “report each\ntransaction involving merchandise shipped during the\nPOR,” that exception applied only “if [it] do[es] not know\nthe entry dates.” J.A. 124. Then, in the preliminary results\nof both AR 9 and AR 10, Commerce stated its intention to\nassess antidumping duty rates on entries made during the\nrelevant POR, rather than on sales. Chlorinated Isocyanu-\nrates from the People’s Republic of China (AR 10 Prelimi-\nnary Results), 81 Fed. Reg. 45,128, 45,129 (Dep’t of\nCommerce July 12, 2016) (prelim. admin. review) (“Upon\nissuing the final results of this review, [Commerce] shall\ndetermine, and [Customs] shall assess, antidumping duties\non all appropriate entries covered by this review.” (empha-\nsis added) (footnote omitted)); Chlorinated Isocyanurates\nfrom the People’s Republic of China (AR 9 Preliminary Re-\nsults), 80 Fed. Reg. 39,060, 39,061 (Dep’t of Commerce July\n8, 2015) (prelim. admin. review) (same). Although Com-\nmerce used the phrase “appropriate entries covered by this\nreview,” AR 10 Preliminary Results, 81 Fed. Reg. at 45,129;\nAR 9 Preliminary Results, 80 Fed. Reg. at 39,061, we con-\nclude this language is sufficiently clear to put Kangtai on\n\n\n 6 “Commerce issues detailed nonmarket economy\nquestionnaires to foreign respondents in the [administra-\ntive review] proceedings to gather information from which\nto calculate dumping margins.” AHSTAC, 802 F.3d at 1342\nn.3 (citing 19 C.F.R. §§ 351.221, 351.301(c)(1)). “These\nquestionnaires are divided into sections: Section A covers\ngeneral corporate information, including corporate and\nbusiness structure, affiliations with other companies, and\nownership details; Section C covers U.S. sales data; and\nSection D covers production data. Commerce may issue\nsupplemental questionnaires if additional information is\nrequired.” Id.\n\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 13\n\n\n\nnotice that Commerce intended that Customs assess duties\non entries made during each relevant POR. This is because\nthe respective preliminary results identify the relevant\nPOR and must be read in context of the previously issued\nquestionnaires discussed above. See AR 10 Preliminary\nResults, 81 Fed. Reg. at 45,129 (identifying the POR as\n“June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015”); AR 9 Preliminary\nResults, 80 Fed. Reg. at 39,060 (identifying the POR as\n“June 1, 2013, through May 31, 2014”). Indeed, Com-\nmerce’s decision to rely on entries accords with its standard\npractice. See Norsk Hydro, 472 F.3d at 1350 (“Commerce\ntypically restricts its consideration to entries made during\nthe one year [POR].”). 7\n During the administrative proceedings, Kangtai did\nnot directly challenge Commerce’s decision to rely on en-\ntries, see Reply Br. 17–18; see also Oral Arg. at 0:11–1:10,\nhttp://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=\n2018-2298.mp3, even though it could have, see 19 C.F.R.\n§§ 351.309(c)(1)(ii) (stating an interested party may submit\na case brief with Commerce within “30 days after the date\nof publication of the preliminary results of review”), (c)(2)\n(“The case brief must present all arguments that continue\nin the submitter’s view to be relevant to\n\n\n\n 7 In response to Commerce’s questionnaires, Kang-\ntai reported sale date, rather than entry date. See, e.g.,\nJ.A. 126, 141–44. Simply because Commerce accepted\nKangtai’s responses and calculated antidumping duty mar-\ngins based on sales made during the POR does not, on its\nown, undermine the other indications that Commerce was\nplanning to assess duties on entries. If Kangtai wanted to\nchallenge Commerce’s decision to assess duties on entries\non the basis that doing so would be at odds with its reliance\non sales for calculation purposes, it could have raised that\nissue to Commerce and then to the CIT in a challenge un-\nder § 1581(c), as discussed below.\n\f14 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\n[Commerce]’s . . . final results . . . .”). Accordingly, in the\nAR 9 Final Results and AR 10 Final Results, Commerce\nmaintained its position that Customs should assess duties\n“on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise” made\nduring the POR “in accordance with the final results.” AR\n10 Final Results, 82 Fed. Reg. at 4852; see AR 9 Final Re-\nsults, 81 Fed. Reg. at 1168 (providing that Customs should\nassess duties “on all appropriate entries covered by this re-\nview”). Because § 1581(c) confers on the CIT jurisdiction to\nconsider challenges to Commerce’s assessment of anti-\ndumping duties based on its determination during admin-\nistrative reviews, see 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c); see also 19 U.S.C.\n§§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii), 1675(a)(2)(C), Kangtai could have\navailed itself of § 1581(c) jurisdiction by challenging Com-\nmerce’s decision to assess margins on entries in either the\nAR 9 Final Results or AR 10 Final Results. 8\n Furthermore, Kangtai has failed to meet its burden of\ndemonstrating that relief under § 1581(c) would have been\nmanifestly inadequate. Not only could Kangtai have chal-\nlenged Commerce’s decision to assess duties on entries in\nthe AR 9 Final Results or the AR 10 Final Results, Kangtai\nactually did file a complaint contesting the AR 10 Final Re-\nsults. See Compl., Heze Huayi Chem. Co. v. United States,\nNo. 1:17-cv-00032-RKM (Ct. Int’l Trade Feb. 15, 2017),\nECF No. 7. However, in that litigation, Kangtai alleged\nonly that Commerce improperly calculated its antidumping\nduty rate, see id. ¶¶ 15–20 (arguing that Commerce im-\nproperly selected a surrogate country and certain\n\n\n\n 8 In at least three cases, the CIT has considered sim-\nilar challenges under its § 1581(c) jurisdiction. See\nWatanabe Grp. v. United States, 34 C.I.T. 1545, 1548–49\n(2010); Corus Staal BV v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 2d\n1291, 1295, 1300–04 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005); Helmerich &\nPayne, Inc. v. United States, 24 F. Supp. 2d 304, 306, 311–\n13 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998).\n\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 15\n\n\n\nsurrogate financial ratios), but did not challenge Com-\nmerce’s decision to assess duties on entries made during\nthe POR, see generally id. When a party files an action\nchallenging Commerce’s final results in an administrative\nreview of an antidumping duty order, it may seek a statu-\ntory injunction from the CIT, thereby preventing liquida-\ntion of its entries while the litigation is pending. See 19\nU.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2) (explaining the CIT “may enjoin the\nliquidation of some or all entries of merchandise covered by\na determination of . . . [Commerce] . . . upon a request by\nan interested party for such relief and a proper showing\nthat the requested relief should be granted under the cir-\ncumstances”). Had Kangtai filed suit and alleged that\nCommerce should have provided that its AR 9 and AR 10\ndecisions applied to all entries on sales made during the\nPOR, even if the entries occurred later, it could have timely\nsought an injunction to prevent liquidation of all eighteen\nentries of subject merchandise until the CIT could resolve\nthe merits of Kangtai’s position. See id. Because filing an\naction could have provided Kangtai the very relief it now\nseeks—the prevention of liquidation at an improper rate,\nsee J.A. 65—we cannot say that a remedy under § 1581(c)\nwould have been “an exercise in futility” and therefore\nmanifestly inadequate, Hutchison, 827 F.3d at 1362. Thus,\nthe CIT lacked § 1581(i) jurisdiction over Counts I–III of\nKangtai’s Complaint.\n We find Kangtai’s counterargument that “the CIT mis-\napplied the standard of review” and drew factual “infer-\nences in favor of the” Government, rather than Kangtai,\nunavailing. Appellants’ Br. 17 (capitalization modified).\nSpecifically, Kangtai criticizes the CIT’s characterization\nof Commerce’s request for information in its Section C\nquestionnaire for U.S. sales, see id. at 17–18; however, the\nCIT’s recitation of the facts simply quoted from Com-\nmerce’s questionnaire, see Kangtai, 322 F. Supp. 3d at 1354\n(“Commerce issued a questionnaire to Kangtai during AR 9\nrequesting that Kangtai ‘prepare a separate computer data\n\f16 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\nfile containing each sale made during the POR’ and\n‘[r]eport each U.S. sale of merchandise entered for con-\nsumption during the POR.’” (quoting J.A. 124)). We do not\ndetect error in the CIT’s reliance on the record documents.\nHere, the CIT properly recognized that Commerce’s Section\nC questionnaire sought entry dates, and, alternatively, sale\ndates. Although “only uncontroverted factual allegations\nare accepted as true for purposes of” deciding a motion to\ndismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Cedars-Si-\nnai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573, 1583 (Fed. Cir.\n1993) (citations omitted), it is certainly uncontested that\nthe questionnaire contained those questions, see Kangtai,\n322 F. Supp. 3d at 1354; J.A. 124.\n Kangtai also argues “the CIT’s finding that ‘Kangtai’s\nresponse attached an exhibit identifying sales and the cor-\nresponding entry dates for those sales’ was clearly errone-\nous.” Appellants’ Br. 18 (quoting Kangtai, 322 F. Supp. 3d\nat 1354). Although the CIT erred when it made this finding\nin the background section of its opinion because Kangtai’s\nSection C questionnaire response did not provide entry\ndates, see J.A. 126, 141–44, the CIT simply did not rely on\nthis factual error as a material part of its legal analysis, see\nKangtai, 322 F. Supp. 3d at 1356–59. Accordingly, we re-\nject Kangtai’s contention.\n CONCLUSION\n We have considered Kangtai’s remaining arguments\nand find them unpersuasive. The Final Judgment of the\nU.S. Court of International Trade is\n AFFIRMED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO., LTD., NAC Group Limited, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-15\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO., LTD.,\\n NAC GROUP LIMITED,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\\n\\n v.\\n\\n UNITED STATES,\\n Defendant-Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-2298\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Court of International\\nTrade in No. 1:17-cv-00257-RWG, Senior Judge Richard W.\\nGoldberg.\\n ______________________\\n\\n SEALED OPINION ISSUED: July 15, 2019\\n PUBLIC OPINION ISSUED: August 7, 2019 *\\n ______________________\\n\\n GREGORY S. MENEGAZ, DeKieffer & Horgan, PLLC,\\nWashington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also\\nrepresented by JAMES KEVIN HORGAN, ALEXANDRA H.\\nSALZMAN.\\n\\n SONIA MARIE ORFIELD, Commercial Litigation Branch,\\n\\n\\n * This opinion was originally filed under seal and has\\nbeen unsealed in full.\\n\\f2 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nCivil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-\\nington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also repre-\\nsented by JOSEPH H. HUNT, JEANNE DAVIDSON, PATRICIA M.\\nMCCARTHY; CATHERINE D. MILLER, Office of Chief Counsel\\nfor Trade Enforcement and Compliance, United States De-\\npartment of Commerce, Washington, DC.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before REYNA, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.\\nWALLACH, Circuit Judge.\\n Appellants Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd.\\n(“Kangtai Chemical”) and NAC Group Limited (“NAC”) (to-\\ngether, “Kangtai”) appeal from the opinion and order of the\\nU.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) dismissing its\\ncomplaint. The CIT held, inter alia, that it lacked jurisdic-\\ntion under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) (2012) to consider three\\ncounts raised in Kangtai’s Complaint relating to certain\\nantidumping duties. See Juancheng Kangtai Chem. Co. v.\\nUnited States (Kangtai), 322 F. Supp. 3d 1351, 1356 (Ct.\\nInt’l Trade 2018). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28\\nU.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). We affirm.\\n BACKGROUND\\n I. Legal Framework\\n By statute, antidumping duties may be imposed on\\n“foreign merchandise . . . being, or . . . likely to be, sold in\\nthe United States at less than its fair value.” 19 U.S.C.\\n§ 1673 (2012). 1 Following an investigation into imposition\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 In June 2015, Congress amended the statutes con-\\ntaining the antidumping provisions. See Trade Preferences\\nExtension Act of 2015 (“TPEA”), Pub. L. No. 114-27,\\n§§ 501–507, 129 Stat. 362, 383–88. Because the relevant\\ndeterminations were made after the TPEA became effec-\\ntive, the TPEA applies. See Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action\\n\\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 3\\n\\n\\n\\nof antidumping duties, if the U.S. Department of Com-\\nmerce (“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade\\nCommission have made the requisite findings, Commerce\\n“shall publish an antidumping duty order” directing U.S.\\nCustoms and Border Protection (“Customs”) officers to as-\\nsess duties on imports of goods covered by the investiga-\\ntion. Id. § 1673e(a); see id. §§ 1673, 1673a, 1677(1). Each\\nyear after the order is published, if Commerce receives a\\nrequest for an administrative review of the antidumping\\nduty order, it shall conduct such a review. Id.\\n§ 1675(a)(1)(B).\\n When conducting these reviews, Commerce typically\\nmust “determine the individual weighted average dumping\\nmargin for each known exporter and producer of the sub-\\nject merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(1); see Viet I-Mei\\nFrozen Foods Co. v. United States, 839 F.3d 1099, 1101\\n(Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that, when “it is not practical\\nto determine individual rates for each” exporter or pro-\\nducer, “Commerce generally selects a subset of companies\\nfor mandatory review and determines an individual dump-\\ning rate for each of those mandatory respondents”). “A\\ndumping margin reflects the amount by which the normal\\nvalue (the price a producer charges in its home market) ex-\\nceeds the export price (the price of the product in the\\nUnited States) or constructed export price.” SolarWorld\\nAms., Inc. v. United States, 910 F.3d 1216, 1220 (Fed. Cir.\\n2018) (internal quotation marks, footnote, and citation\\nomitted); see 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A). 2\\n\\n\\n\\nComm. v. United States (AHSTAC), 802 F.3d 1339, 1348–\\n52 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We cite to the U.S. Code version of the\\nstatute as there are no material changes in the TPEA for\\npurposes of this appeal.\\n 2 “When the foreign producer or exporter sells di-\\nrectly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States,\\nCommerce uses [export price] as the U.S. price for purposes\\n\\f4 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n The statute explains how “normal value shall be deter-\\nmined” “[i]n order to achieve a fair comparison with the ex-\\nport price or constructed export price.” 19 U.S.C.\\n§ 1677b(a). Relevant here, Commerce has found the Peo-\\nple’s Republic of China (“China”) is a nonmarket economy\\ncountry. See SolarWorld, 910 F.3d at 1220 n.3. A “non-\\nmarket economy country” is “any foreign country that\\n[Commerce] determines does not operate on market princi-\\nples of cost or pricing structures, so that sales of merchan-\\ndise in such country do not reflect the fair value of the\\nmerchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(18)(A). “In antidumping\\nduty proceedings involving merchandise from a non-mar-\\nket economy, . . . Commerce presumes that all respondents\\nare government-controlled and[,] therefore[,] subject to a\\nsingle country-wide rate,” unless respondents “rebut this\\npresumption” to demonstrate eligibility for separate rates,\\ni.e., “individual dumping margins . . . for each known ex-\\nporter or producer.” Dongtai Peak Honey Indus. Co. v.\\nUnited States, 777 F.3d 1343, 1349–50 (Fed. Cir. 2015)\\n(footnote omitted) (citing, inter alia, 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-\\n1(c)(1)).\\n II. Procedural History\\n In 2005, Commerce published an antidumping duty or-\\nder on chlorinated isocyanurates (“subject merchandise”)\\nfrom China. Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s\\nRepublic of China (AD Order), 70 Fed. Reg. 36,561, 36,561–\\n\\n\\nof the comparison.” Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 243\\nF.3d 1301, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). “How-\\never, where a sale is made by a foreign producer or exporter\\nto an affiliated purchaser in the United States, the statute\\nprovides for use of [constructed export price] as the [U.S.]\\nprice for purposes of the comparison.” Id. (citation omit-\\nted). The calculation of constructed export price, as com-\\npared to export price, is subject to certain “[a]dditional\\nadjustments.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d).\\n\\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 5\\n\\n\\n\\n62 (Dep’t of Commerce June 24, 2005) (antidumping duty\\norder). 3 Related to this appeal, Commerce conducted its\\nninth administrative review (“AR 9”) of the AD Order, cov-\\nering the period of review (“POR”) from June 1, 2013,\\nthrough May 31, 2014, and tenth administrative review\\n(“AR 10”), covering the POR from June 1, 2014, through\\nMay 31, 2015. See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the Peo-\\nple’s Republic of China (AR 10 Final Results), 82 Fed. Reg.\\n4852, 4852 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 17, 2017) (final admin.\\nreview); Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Re-\\npublic of China (AR 9 Final Results), 81 Fed. Reg. 1167,\\n1167 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 11, 2016) (final admin. re-\\nview). In the AR 9 Final Results, Commerce assigned\\nKangtai Chemical, which had been selected by Commerce\\nas a mandatory respondent, a 0% antidumping duty mar-\\ngin. 81 Fed. Reg. at 1168. In the AR 10 Final Results,\\nCommerce assigned Kangtai Chemical, which again had\\nbeen selected by Commerce as a mandatory respondent, an\\nantidumping duty margin of 35.05%. 82 Fed. Reg. at 4852.\\nRegarding both AR 9 and AR 10, Commerce explained that\\nfor the exporters individually reviewed, such as Kangtai\\nChemical, Commerce would require cash deposits at the\\nantidumping duty margin rate calculated, but that “for all\\n[Chinese] exporters of subject merchandise that have not\\nbeen found to be eligible for a separate rate, the cash de-\\nposit rate will be the [China]-wide rate of 285.63[%].” AR\\n10 Final Results, 82 Fed. Reg. at 4853; AR 9 Final Results,\\n81 Fed. Reg. at 1168.\\n Following the AR 9 Final Results, in which Kangtai re-\\nceived a zero percent antidumping duty margin, Commerce\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 The subject merchandise includes “derivatives of\\ncyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones,”\\nthat have “three primary chemical compositions” and “are\\navailable in powder, granular, and tableted forms.” AD Or-\\nder, 70 Fed. Reg. at 36,561.\\n\\f6 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nissued liquidation instructions to Customs. See J.A. 101–\\n04. The AR 9 liquidation instructions ordered Customs to\\nassess a rate of $0.00 per metric ton on all shipments of\\nsubject merchandise “exported by [Kangtai Chemical], im-\\nported by or sold to” NAC, “and entered, or withdrawn from\\nwarehouse, for consumption during the period 06/01/2013\\nthrough 05/31/2014,” which is the POR covered by AR 9.\\nJ.A. 102 (emphasis added). The AR 10 liquidation instruc-\\ntions similarly set liquidation rates in U.S. dollars per met-\\nric ton for shipments of subject merchandise based on the\\nmargins calculated in the AR 10 Final Results “exported by\\n[Kangtai Chemical], imported by or sold to [specified pur-\\nchasers, not including NAC], and entered, or withdrawn\\nfrom warehouse, for consumption during the period\\n06/01/2014 through 05/31/2015.” J.A. 106 For entries\\nmade during the POR associated with AR 10 “not covered”\\nby the above instruction in the AR 10 liquidation instruc-\\ntions (thereby including exports by Kangtai Chemical im-\\nported by NAC), Commerce instructed Customs to “assess\\nantidumping duties at the [China]-wide rate” of 285.63%.\\nJ.A. 106.\\n In October 2017, Kangtai filed its Complaint against\\nthe Government. J.A. 58. Kangtai asserted jurisdiction\\npursuant to § 1581(i)(2) and (i)(4). J.A. 59. According to\\nKangtai, Commerce improperly instructed Customs to as-\\nsess an antidumping duty margin on eighteen of Kangtai’s\\nsubject merchandise entries at a rate higher than the zero\\npercent rate calculated for Kangtai’s entries in the AR 9\\nFinal Results. See J.A. 58, 63. Kangtai alleged that it\\nmade “sales [that] were invoiced at the end of” the POR as-\\nsociated with AR 9, but that the subject merchandise “en-\\ntered the United States in the subsequent review,” i.e.,\\nduring the POR associated with AR 10. J.A. 58. According\\nto Kangtai, Commerce “liquidated eleven of these entries,”\\nbut seven remained unliquidated. J.A. 63. Kangtai al-\\nleged, inter alia, that: (1) Commerce “acted contrary to law\\nwhen it assessed individual sales [at] an [antidumping\\n\\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 7\\n\\n\\n\\nduty] rate that was higher than the rate calculated upon\\nindividual review” in AR 9, J.A. 63–64 (Count I); (2) Com-\\nmerce’s “decision to treat the sales as if they were made by\\nthe [China-wide entity] is unsupported by substantial evi-\\ndence” because “those sales were made by Kangtai,” J.A. 64\\n(Count II); and (3) Commerce’s “decision that the NAC en-\\ntries were not reviewed merely because they entered in the\\nPOR subsequent to the AR in which they were reviewed\\nwas unsupported by substantial evidence as well as arbi-\\ntrary and capricious,” J.A. 64 (Count III). 4\\n The CIT held it lacked jurisdiction under § 1581(i).\\nKangtai, 322 F. Supp. 3d at 1356. The CIT explained\\n“Kangtai cannot make out a [§] 1581(i) claim as the essence\\nof its challenge remains directed at Commerce’s use of sales\\nand entries in its antidumping duty calculations,” and this\\ntype of claim is properly brought under a different jurisdic-\\ntional provision, specifically § 1581(c). Id. at 1358. It\\ntherefore dismissed Counts I–III of Kangtai’s Complaint\\nand entered final judgment in favor of the Government.\\nSee id. at 1356, 1360.\\n DISCUSSION\\n I. Standard of Review and Legal Standard\\n We review the CIT’s jurisdictional determination de\\nnovo. See Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1186,\\n1191 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “Although we review the decisions\\n\\n\\n 4 The Complaint also alleged, in Count IV, that Com-\\nmerce’s “decision to liquidate entries prior to the expiry of\\nthe [sixty] days permitted by law to lodge an appeal was\\nunlawful and an unreasonable litigation tactic,” thereby\\nchallenging Commerce’s policy to issue liquidation instruc-\\ntions to Customs within fifteen days of publication of its\\nfinal results of an administrative review. J.A. 65. Kangtai\\ndid not challenge the CIT’s dismissal of Count IV in this\\nappeal. See generally Appellants’ Br.\\n\\f8 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nof the CIT de novo, we give great weight to the informed\\nopinion of the CIT and it is nearly always the starting point\\nof our analysis.” Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States,\\n810 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation\\nmarks, brackets, ellipsis, and citation omitted). “The party\\ninvoking the CIT’s jurisdiction bears the burden of estab-\\nlishing it. However, we must accept well-pleaded factual\\nallegations as true and must draw all reasonable infer-\\nences in favor of the claimant.” Hutchison Quality Furni-\\nture, Inc. v. United States, 827 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir.\\n2016) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations\\nomitted). In ascertaining whether jurisdiction is proper,\\nwe look to “the true nature of the action.” Norsk Hydro\\nCan., Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir.\\n2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\\n The CIT’s “jurisdiction is enumerated in 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1581(a)–(j).” Carbon Activated Corp. v. United States,\\n791 F.3d 1312, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1581(a)–(j). Subsections (c) and (i) of § 1581 are relevant\\nto this appeal. Section 1581(c) confers on the CIT “exclu-\\nsive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced under”\\n19 U.S.C. § 1516a (2012), 5 which includes Commerce’s an-\\nnual administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders.\\nSee 19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii), 1675(a)(2)(C). Section\\n1581(i) sets forth the CIT’s so-called “residual jurisdiction.”\\nCarbon Activated, 791 F.3d at 1314 (internal quotation\\nmarks omitted). Under this section, the CIT has\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 Congress amended § 1581(c) through Title IV of the\\nTrade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. See\\nEnforce and Protect Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-125,\\n§ 421(b), 130 Stat. 154, 168 (2016) (“EAPA”). EAPA ex-\\npanded the CIT’s § 1581(c) jurisdiction to include civil ac-\\ntions commenced under 19 U.S.C. § 1517 relating to\\nevasion of antidumping and countervailing duty orders, see\\nid., but those amendments are not relevant here.\\n\\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 9\\n\\n\\n\\n exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced\\n against the United States, its agencies, or its offic-\\n ers, that arises out of any law of the United States\\n providing for—\\n (1) revenue from imports or tonnage;\\n (2) tariffs, duties, fees, or other taxes on the\\n importation of merchandise for reasons\\n other than the raising of revenue;\\n (3) embargoes or other quantitative re-\\n strictions on the importation of merchan-\\n dise for reasons other than the protection\\n of the public health or safety; or\\n (4) administration and enforcement with\\n respect to the matters referred to in para-\\n graphs (1)–(3) of this subsection and sub-\\n sections (a)–(h) of [§ 1581].\\n28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) (emphases added).\\n The CIT’s residual jurisdiction “may not be invoked\\nwhen jurisdiction under another subsection of § 1581 is or\\ncould have been available, unless the remedy provided un-\\nder that other subsection would be manifestly inadequate.”\\nSunpreme, 892 F.3d at 1191 (citation omitted). “Where an-\\nother remedy is or could have been available, the party as-\\nserting § 1581(i) jurisdiction has the burden to show that\\nthe remedy would be manifestly inadequate.” Id. (citation\\nomitted). A remedy is manifestly inadequate if it is “an\\nexercise in futility,” meaning it is “incapable of producing\\nany result.” Hutchison, 827 F.3d at 1362 (internal quota-\\ntion marks and citation omitted).\\nII. The CIT Properly Dismissed Kangtai’s Claims for Lack\\n of Jurisdiction\\n The CIT dismissed Counts I–III of the Complaint for\\nlack of jurisdiction, explaining that “it is clear that the true\\nnature of Kangtai’s [C]omplaint aims to challenge\\n\\f10 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nCommerce’s evaluation of sales in AR 9 and entries in AR\\n10, a claim properly arising out of [§] 1581(c).” Kangtai,\\n322 F. Supp. 3d at 1356. According to the CIT, the Com-\\nplaint alleges “that Commerce imposed a liquidation rate\\nthat improperly considered already reported sales and en-\\ntries.” Id. at 1357. The CIT rejected Kangtai’s challenge\\n“that the sales made during [the ninth POR]—and consid-\\nered in AR 9—and then entered during [the tenth POR],\\nshould have been assigned the AR 9 rate but were improp-\\nerly liquidated at the AR 10 rate,” reasoning instead that\\n“those eighteen entries went unreported in AR 10, even\\nthough they were entered during [the tenth POR]” based\\non Kangtai’s failure to report them after being directed to\\ndo so by Commerce. Id. The CIT further determined that\\na remedy under § 1581(c) was not manifestly inadequate\\nbecause Kangtai was “on notice” that duties would be as-\\nsessed against its entries based on language in the AR 9\\nFinal Results and could have filed “a complaint challenging\\nthe results of AR 9.” Id. at 1358.\\n Kangtai argues “the CIT erroneously found that Kang-\\ntai’s Complaint challenged the AR 10 Final Results and\\nshould therefore have been brought under [§] 1581(c).” Ap-\\npellants’ Br. 20 (italics added) (capitalization modified).\\nRather, Kangtai maintains that its challenge is to Com-\\nmerce’s liquidation instructions, which it asserts improp-\\nerly imposed the China-wide entity liquidation rate of\\n285.63% “upon eighteen sales and the subsequent entries\\nthat were fully reported in AR 9.” Id. at 20–21. Kangtai\\nfurther avers that any remedy available to it under\\n§ 1581(c) “is manifestly inadequate” because Kangtai al-\\nready received a zero percent margin in the AR 9 Final Re-\\nsults, meaning “there was nothing to appeal” there, and\\nbecause filing a § 1581(c) action challenging the AR 10 Fi-\\nnal Results “would not save [its eighteen entries at issue]\\nfrom being liquidated at the [China]-wide rate.” Id. at 27.\\nKangtai’s analysis is incorrect.\\n\\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 11\\n\\n\\n\\n Kangtai could have sought relief under § 1581(c) be-\\ncause the true nature of Kangtai’s action is a challenge to\\nCommerce’s determination to assess antidumping duties\\non entries, rather than on sales, made during the relevant\\nPOR. In its Complaint, Kangtai alleges that “all eight-\\neen . . . entries were governed by AR 9 because the sales in\\nquestion were specifically reviewed and [antidumping\\nduty] margins calculated in AR 9; not AR 10.” J.A. 63 (em-\\nphasis added). According to Kangtai, Commerce improp-\\nerly determined these sales were not subject to the AR 9\\nrate because they were entered during the POR corre-\\nsponding to AR 10. See J.A. 58 (“Only because the sales\\nwere invoiced at the end of that period of review (and thus\\nlawfully included therein) but entered the United States in\\nthe subsequent review were they actually assessed a puni-\\ntive[ly] high [antidumping duty] margin that bore no rela-\\ntion to the actual[ly] calculated [antidumping duty] rate for\\nthose very sales.”). The statute requires Commerce to con-\\nduct administrative reviews and “determine” the amount\\nof antidumping duties, upon request, for “12-month pe-\\nriod[s].” 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(1). For antidumping duty pro-\\nceedings, “an administrative review under this section\\nnormally will cover, as appropriate, entries, exports, or\\nsales of the subject merchandise during the [twelve]\\nmonths immediately preceding the most recent anniver-\\nsary month.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.213(e)(1)(i) (2019) (emphases\\nadded). This regulation affords Commerce flexibility in de-\\nciding how to measure the twelve-month POR covered in\\nan administrative review, whether it be based on date of\\nentry, export, or sale. See id.\\n Here, Commerce repeatedly manifested its intent to\\nrely on the date of entry for its assessment of antidumping\\nduties. For instance, during AR 9, Commerce issued\\n\\f12 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nquestionnaires 6 asking Kangtai to “[r]eport each U.S. sale\\nof merchandise entered for consumption during the POR.”\\nJ.A. 124 (emphasis added). Although Commerce stated\\nthat “for [export price] sales” Kangtai could “report each\\ntransaction involving merchandise shipped during the\\nPOR,” that exception applied only “if [it] do[es] not know\\nthe entry dates.” J.A. 124. Then, in the preliminary results\\nof both AR 9 and AR 10, Commerce stated its intention to\\nassess antidumping duty rates on entries made during the\\nrelevant POR, rather than on sales. Chlorinated Isocyanu-\\nrates from the People’s Republic of China (AR 10 Prelimi-\\nnary Results), 81 Fed. Reg. 45,128, 45,129 (Dep’t of\\nCommerce July 12, 2016) (prelim. admin. review) (“Upon\\nissuing the final results of this review, [Commerce] shall\\ndetermine, and [Customs] shall assess, antidumping duties\\non all appropriate entries covered by this review.” (empha-\\nsis added) (footnote omitted)); Chlorinated Isocyanurates\\nfrom the People’s Republic of China (AR 9 Preliminary Re-\\nsults), 80 Fed. Reg. 39,060, 39,061 (Dep’t of Commerce July\\n8, 2015) (prelim. admin. review) (same). Although Com-\\nmerce used the phrase “appropriate entries covered by this\\nreview,” AR 10 Preliminary Results, 81 Fed. Reg. at 45,129;\\nAR 9 Preliminary Results, 80 Fed. Reg. at 39,061, we con-\\nclude this language is sufficiently clear to put Kangtai on\\n\\n\\n 6 “Commerce issues detailed nonmarket economy\\nquestionnaires to foreign respondents in the [administra-\\ntive review] proceedings to gather information from which\\nto calculate dumping margins.” AHSTAC, 802 F.3d at 1342\\nn.3 (citing 19 C.F.R. §§ 351.221, 351.301(c)(1)). “These\\nquestionnaires are divided into sections: Section A covers\\ngeneral corporate information, including corporate and\\nbusiness structure, affiliations with other companies, and\\nownership details; Section C covers U.S. sales data; and\\nSection D covers production data. Commerce may issue\\nsupplemental questionnaires if additional information is\\nrequired.” Id.\\n\\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 13\\n\\n\\n\\nnotice that Commerce intended that Customs assess duties\\non entries made during each relevant POR. This is because\\nthe respective preliminary results identify the relevant\\nPOR and must be read in context of the previously issued\\nquestionnaires discussed above. See AR 10 Preliminary\\nResults, 81 Fed. Reg. at 45,129 (identifying the POR as\\n“June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015”); AR 9 Preliminary\\nResults, 80 Fed. Reg. at 39,060 (identifying the POR as\\n“June 1, 2013, through May 31, 2014”). Indeed, Com-\\nmerce’s decision to rely on entries accords with its standard\\npractice. See Norsk Hydro, 472 F.3d at 1350 (“Commerce\\ntypically restricts its consideration to entries made during\\nthe one year [POR].”). 7\\n During the administrative proceedings, Kangtai did\\nnot directly challenge Commerce’s decision to rely on en-\\ntries, see Reply Br. 17–18; see also Oral Arg. at 0:11–1:10,\\nhttp://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=\\n2018-2298.mp3, even though it could have, see 19 C.F.R.\\n§§ 351.309(c)(1)(ii) (stating an interested party may submit\\na case brief with Commerce within “30 days after the date\\nof publication of the preliminary results of review”), (c)(2)\\n(“The case brief must present all arguments that continue\\nin the submitter’s view to be relevant to\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 In response to Commerce’s questionnaires, Kang-\\ntai reported sale date, rather than entry date. See, e.g.,\\nJ.A. 126, 141–44. Simply because Commerce accepted\\nKangtai’s responses and calculated antidumping duty mar-\\ngins based on sales made during the POR does not, on its\\nown, undermine the other indications that Commerce was\\nplanning to assess duties on entries. If Kangtai wanted to\\nchallenge Commerce’s decision to assess duties on entries\\non the basis that doing so would be at odds with its reliance\\non sales for calculation purposes, it could have raised that\\nissue to Commerce and then to the CIT in a challenge un-\\nder § 1581(c), as discussed below.\\n\\f14 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n[Commerce]’s . . . final results . . . .”). Accordingly, in the\\nAR 9 Final Results and AR 10 Final Results, Commerce\\nmaintained its position that Customs should assess duties\\n“on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise” made\\nduring the POR “in accordance with the final results.” AR\\n10 Final Results, 82 Fed. Reg. at 4852; see AR 9 Final Re-\\nsults, 81 Fed. Reg. at 1168 (providing that Customs should\\nassess duties “on all appropriate entries covered by this re-\\nview”). Because § 1581(c) confers on the CIT jurisdiction to\\nconsider challenges to Commerce’s assessment of anti-\\ndumping duties based on its determination during admin-\\nistrative reviews, see 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c); see also 19 U.S.C.\\n§§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii), 1675(a)(2)(C), Kangtai could have\\navailed itself of § 1581(c) jurisdiction by challenging Com-\\nmerce’s decision to assess margins on entries in either the\\nAR 9 Final Results or AR 10 Final Results. 8\\n Furthermore, Kangtai has failed to meet its burden of\\ndemonstrating that relief under § 1581(c) would have been\\nmanifestly inadequate. Not only could Kangtai have chal-\\nlenged Commerce’s decision to assess duties on entries in\\nthe AR 9 Final Results or the AR 10 Final Results, Kangtai\\nactually did file a complaint contesting the AR 10 Final Re-\\nsults. See Compl., Heze Huayi Chem. Co. v. United States,\\nNo. 1:17-cv-00032-RKM (Ct. Int’l Trade Feb. 15, 2017),\\nECF No. 7. However, in that litigation, Kangtai alleged\\nonly that Commerce improperly calculated its antidumping\\nduty rate, see id. ¶¶ 15–20 (arguing that Commerce im-\\nproperly selected a surrogate country and certain\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 In at least three cases, the CIT has considered sim-\\nilar challenges under its § 1581(c) jurisdiction. See\\nWatanabe Grp. v. United States, 34 C.I.T. 1545, 1548–49\\n(2010); Corus Staal BV v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 2d\\n1291, 1295, 1300–04 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005); Helmerich &\\nPayne, Inc. v. United States, 24 F. Supp. 2d 304, 306, 311–\\n13 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998).\\n\\fJUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES 15\\n\\n\\n\\nsurrogate financial ratios), but did not challenge Com-\\nmerce’s decision to assess duties on entries made during\\nthe POR, see generally id. When a party files an action\\nchallenging Commerce’s final results in an administrative\\nreview of an antidumping duty order, it may seek a statu-\\ntory injunction from the CIT, thereby preventing liquida-\\ntion of its entries while the litigation is pending. See 19\\nU.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2) (explaining the CIT “may enjoin the\\nliquidation of some or all entries of merchandise covered by\\na determination of . . . [Commerce] . . . upon a request by\\nan interested party for such relief and a proper showing\\nthat the requested relief should be granted under the cir-\\ncumstances”). Had Kangtai filed suit and alleged that\\nCommerce should have provided that its AR 9 and AR 10\\ndecisions applied to all entries on sales made during the\\nPOR, even if the entries occurred later, it could have timely\\nsought an injunction to prevent liquidation of all eighteen\\nentries of subject merchandise until the CIT could resolve\\nthe merits of Kangtai’s position. See id. Because filing an\\naction could have provided Kangtai the very relief it now\\nseeks—the prevention of liquidation at an improper rate,\\nsee J.A. 65—we cannot say that a remedy under § 1581(c)\\nwould have been “an exercise in futility” and therefore\\nmanifestly inadequate, Hutchison, 827 F.3d at 1362. Thus,\\nthe CIT lacked § 1581(i) jurisdiction over Counts I–III of\\nKangtai’s Complaint.\\n We find Kangtai’s counterargument that “the CIT mis-\\napplied the standard of review” and drew factual “infer-\\nences in favor of the” Government, rather than Kangtai,\\nunavailing. Appellants’ Br. 17 (capitalization modified).\\nSpecifically, Kangtai criticizes the CIT’s characterization\\nof Commerce’s request for information in its Section C\\nquestionnaire for U.S. sales, see id. at 17–18; however, the\\nCIT’s recitation of the facts simply quoted from Com-\\nmerce’s questionnaire, see Kangtai, 322 F. Supp. 3d at 1354\\n(“Commerce issued a questionnaire to Kangtai during AR 9\\nrequesting that Kangtai ‘prepare a separate computer data\\n\\f16 JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nfile containing each sale made during the POR’ and\\n‘[r]eport each U.S. sale of merchandise entered for con-\\nsumption during the POR.’” (quoting J.A. 124)). We do not\\ndetect error in the CIT’s reliance on the record documents.\\nHere, the CIT properly recognized that Commerce’s Section\\nC questionnaire sought entry dates, and, alternatively, sale\\ndates. Although “only uncontroverted factual allegations\\nare accepted as true for purposes of” deciding a motion to\\ndismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Cedars-Si-\\nnai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573, 1583 (Fed. Cir.\\n1993) (citations omitted), it is certainly uncontested that\\nthe questionnaire contained those questions, see Kangtai,\\n322 F. Supp. 3d at 1354; J.A. 124.\\n Kangtai also argues “the CIT’s finding that ‘Kangtai’s\\nresponse attached an exhibit identifying sales and the cor-\\nresponding entry dates for those sales’ was clearly errone-\\nous.” Appellants’ Br. 18 (quoting Kangtai, 322 F. Supp. 3d\\nat 1354). Although the CIT erred when it made this finding\\nin the background section of its opinion because Kangtai’s\\nSection C questionnaire response did not provide entry\\ndates, see J.A. 126, 141–44, the CIT simply did not rely on\\nthis factual error as a material part of its legal analysis, see\\nKangtai, 322 F. Supp. 3d at 1356–59. Accordingly, we re-\\nject Kangtai’s contention.\\n CONCLUSION\\n We have considered Kangtai’s remaining arguments\\nand find them unpersuasive. The Final Judgment of the\\nU.S. Court of International Trade is\\n AFFIRMED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3497,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4639884,"string":"4,639,884"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Bechtel National, Inc. v. United States"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-16"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"2018-2055"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Newman, Schall, Dyk\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"DYK, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC.,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n UNITED STATES,\\n Defendant-Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-2055\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims\\nin No. 1:17-cv-00657-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 16, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n STEPHEN KNIGHT, Smith, Pachter, McWhorter, PLC,\\nTysons Corner, VA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also\\nrepresented by EDMUND MICHAEL AMOROSI.\\n\\n GEOFFREY MARTIN LONG, Commercial Litigation\\nBranch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-\\ntice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also\\nrepresented by JOSEPH H. HUNT, ROBERT EDWARD\\nKIRSCHMAN, JR., PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f2 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nDYK, Circuit Judge.\\n Bechtel National, Inc. (“Bechtel”) appeals from a deci-\\nsion of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims\\nCourt”) granting summary judgment in favor of the govern-\\nment. The Claims Court held that our decision in Geren v.\\nTecom, Inc., 566 F.3d 1037 (Fed. Cir. 2009), precluded re-\\nimbursement of costs that Bechtel incurred in defending\\ntwo sexual and racial discrimination and retaliation suits\\nbrought by former employees.\\n We hold that Tecom governs the allowability of\\nBechtel’s defense costs and affirm the Claims Court’s deci-\\nsion.\\n BACKGROUND\\n Between 1943 and 1990, the government produced plu-\\ntonium for nuclear weapons at the Hanford Site in the state\\nof Washington, leaving behind “approximately 56 million\\ngallons of nuclear waste” stored in underground tanks.\\nBechtel Nat’l, Inc. v. United States, 137 Fed. Cl. 423, 425\\n(2018). On December 11, 2000, Bechtel was awarded a\\ncost-plus-incentive fee contract by the Department of En-\\nergy (“DOE”) “for the design, construction, and operation”\\nof a nuclear waste treatment plant at the Hanford Site in\\nWashington. Id. The contract incorporated by reference\\nprovisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”)\\nand the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation\\n(“DEAR”).\\n During performance of the contract, two former Bechtel\\nemployees at the Hanford Site separately sued Bechtel un-\\nder 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state law, alleging sexual and ra-\\ncial discrimination and subsequent retaliation for raising\\ntheir complaints. Bechtel settled these lawsuits and then\\nsought $500,000 in reimbursement from the DOE for the\\ncosts it incurred in defending the two suits. Bechtel did not\\nseek reimbursement for the settlement payments related\\n\\fBECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES 3\\n\\n\\n\\nto the litigation, likely because the settlement amounts\\nwere covered by insurance. The DOE provisionally ap-\\nproved Bechtel’s request and reimbursed Bechtel for the\\nfull amount requested.\\n On May 11, 2016, the contracting officer issued a notice\\nof intent to disallow the costs. The contracting officer in-\\nformed Bechtel that “[he had] determined that the costs in-\\ncurred by [Bechtel] in defending these matters [were]\\nunallowable under the standards set forth in Tecom.”\\nBechtel, 137 Fed. Cl. at 427 (alterations in original).\\n Bechtel responded on July 13, 2016, arguing that\\nTecom did not govern the allowability of the costs. Rather,\\nit contended that a provision of the contract, DEAR\\n970.5204-31 (1997), “alone dictates the treatment and re-\\nimbursability of legal costs.” J.A. 691. The DEAR provi-\\nsion, entitled “Insurance—litigation and claims,” provides:\\n (e) Except as provided in subparagraphs (g) and (h)\\n of this clause, or specifically disallowed elsewhere\\n in this contract, the contractor shall be reim-\\n bursed . . .\\n (2) For liabilities (and reasonable expenses\\n incidental to such liabilities, including liti-\\n gation costs) to third persons not compen-\\n sated by insurance or otherwise . . . .\\n (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this\\n contract, the contractor shall not be reimbursed for\\n liabilities (and expenses incidental to such liabili-\\n ties, including litigation costs, counsel fees, judg-\\n ment and settlements)—\\n (1) Which are otherwise unallowable by law\\n or the provisions of this contract . . . .\\n (h) In addition to the cost reimbursement limita-\\n tions contained in DEAR 970.3101-3, and notwith-\\n standing any other provision of this contract, the\\n\\f4 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n contractor’s liabilities to third persons, including\\n employees but excluding costs incidental to work-\\n ers’ compensation actions, (and any expenses inci-\\n dental to such liabilities, including litigation costs,\\n counsel fees, judgments and settlements) shall not\\n be reimbursed if such liabilities were caused by\\n contractor managerial personnel’s\\n (1) Willful misconduct,\\n (2) Lack of good faith, or\\n (3) Failure to exercise prudent business\\n judgment . . . .\\nDEAR 970.5204-31 (emphases added).\\n On September 13, 2016, the contracting officer issued\\na final decision disallowing the costs. Because the govern-\\nment had already reimbursed Bechtel, the decision stated\\nthat “the government would offset the amount it had pro-\\nvisionally reimbursed Bechtel from future amounts the\\ngovernment owed to it as a result.” Bechtel, 137 Fed. Cl. at\\n427.\\n On May 18, 2017, Bechtel brought suit in the Claims\\nCourt challenging the contracting officer’s final decision\\nand seeking reimbursement of the defense costs. See 41\\nU.S.C. § 7104(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2). The parties\\nfiled cross-motions for summary judgment. The Claims\\nCourt granted the government’s motion for summary judg-\\nment, concluding that Tecom provided the proper standard\\nfor determining whether the defense costs were allowable\\nunder the contract and holding that the costs were not al-\\nlowable.\\n Bechtel timely appealed to this court. We have juris-\\ndiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We review a\\ngrant of summary judgment by the Claims Court de novo.\\nNorthrop Grumman Computing Sys., Inc. v. United States,\\n823 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016).\\n\\fBECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES 5\\n\\n\\n\\n DISCUSSION\\n I\\n Tecom involved a dispute over whether costs associated\\nwith settling an employment discrimination lawsuit were\\nallowable costs under a government contract that incorpo-\\nrated provisions of the FAR. 566 F.3d at 1040. “[A] former\\nemployee [had] sued Tecom under Title VII, alleging sexual\\nharassment and firing in retaliation for filing a sexual har-\\nassment charge.” Id. at 1039. The alleged conduct, if\\nproven, would have violated Title VII. Id. After settling\\nthe suit, the contractor sought reimbursement from the\\ngovernment for defense costs and settlement payments as-\\nsociated with the lawsuit. Id.\\n The contract incorporated FAR 31.201-2, which states\\nthat costs incurred by the contractor are “allowable only\\nwhen the cost complies with . . . [t]erms of the contract.”\\nId. at 1040 (quoting FAR 31.201-2). One of the terms of the\\ncontract at issue was FAR 52.222-26 (1984), which pro-\\nvided that “[t]he Contractor shall not discriminate against\\nany employee or applicant for employment because of race,\\ncolor, religion, sex, or national origin.” Id. at 1039 (quoting\\nFAR 52.222-26).\\n We articulated a standard for determining when costs\\nincurred by a contractor in defending and settling third\\nparty claims are allowable under a government contract:\\n“(1) we ask whether, if an adverse judgment [had been]\\nreached, the damages, costs, and attorney’s fees would be\\nallowable; (2) if not, we ask whether the costs of settlement\\nwould be allowable.” Id. at 1041 (citing Boeing N. Am., Inc.\\nv. Roche, 298 F.3d 1274, 1285–89 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).\\n As to the first step, we concluded that “the damages,\\ncosts, and attorney’s fees associated with a violation of Ti-\\ntle VII would not be allowable under this contract.” Id. Be-\\ncause “[s]exual harassment is a form of sex\\n\\f6 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ndiscrimination,” we determined that “the alleged discrimi-\\nnation would [have] clearly violate[d] the contract.” Id. at\\n1043–44. Thus, we held that “costs associated with an ad-\\nverse judgment on the merits would not be allowable” un-\\nder FAR 31.201-2. Id. at 1044. Our conclusion was\\n“underscored by the clear public policy of Title VII,” which\\n“prevent[s] the government from being complicit in paying\\nfor discriminatory employment practices.” Id. at 1044.\\n As to the second step—i.e., whether the costs are none-\\ntheless allowable when the contractor settles before an ad-\\nverse judgment—we determined that our decision in\\nBoeing “squarely addressed” that issue. Id. at 1045. We\\nheld that, under Boeing, “[w]here the damages or penalties\\npaid in the event of an adverse judgment are disallowed,”\\nsettlement costs are also unallowable unless the contractor\\ncan establish that the plaintiff in the discrimination suit\\n“had very little likelihood of success on the merits.” Id. at\\n1046.\\n II\\n The contract at issue here incorporated FAR 31.201-2\\n(2000) and FAR 52.222-26 (1999)—the very same provi-\\nsions of the FAR that we held barred reimbursement in\\nTecom. 1 Further, although the former employees brought\\n\\n\\n 1 Both the Tecom contract and the contract here in-\\ncorporated the pre-2004 version of FAR 31.201-2, and in\\nTecom, we treated the pre-2004 version as equivalent to the\\npost-2004 version. See 566 F.3d at 1039–40. The prefatory\\nlanguage of that section was revised in 2004 from “[t]he\\nfactors to be considered in determining whether a cost is\\nallowable include the following” to “[a] cost is allowable\\nonly when the cost complies with all of the following re-\\nquirements,” compare FAR 31.201-2 (2000) with\\nFAR 31.201-2 (2004), but the amendment was not a sub-\\nstantive change. In both instances “Terms of the contract”\\n\\fBECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES 7\\n\\n\\n\\ntheir discrimination claims against Bechtel under § 1981\\nand state law, rather than under Title VII (as was the case\\nin Tecom), sexual and racial discrimination in violation of\\n§ 1981 and state anti-discrimination law would be a text-\\nbook breach of FAR 52.222-26. Bechtel makes no argument\\nto the contrary.\\n Tecom recognized that the analysis for determining\\nwhether the costs are allowable could change if there was\\na contract provision “dictat[ing] the treatment of specific\\ncosts.” 566 F.3d at 1041. Bechtel argues that Tecom does\\nnot govern allowability of the costs here because the con-\\ntract incorporated such a provision dictating the treatment\\nof specific costs, namely DEAR 970.5204-31. That provi-\\nsion was not incorporated in the Tecom contract. According\\nto Bechtel, that provision “makes costs incurred in defense\\nof third party claims, including employment discrimination\\nclaims, presumptively allowable.” Bechtel Op. Br. 21. We\\nconclude that DEAR 970.5204-31 is not a specific provision\\nmaking allowable the defense costs.\\n The DEAR provision generally provides for reimburse-\\nment of contractor liabilities to third parties and “litigation\\ncosts.” DEAR 970.5204-31(e). This allowability provision\\nis subject to certain exceptions. The provision makes clear\\nin two separate places that costs disallowed by other\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nwas listed. In promulgating the final rule, the agency made\\nclear that the revision did not “constitute[] a major change\\nin determining allowability” and merely made the lan-\\nguage of the provision “consistent with established case\\nlaw, i.e., a cost must meet all five factors to be allowable.”\\nFederal Acquisition Regulation; General Provisions of the\\nCost Principles, 69 Fed. Reg. 17,764, 17,765 (Apr. 5, 2004).\\nBechtel does not argue there is a substantive difference be-\\ntween the pre-2004 and post-2004 versions.\\n\\f8 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nprovisions of the contract are not allowable. First, the\\nDEAR provision states that\\n [e]xcept as provided in subparagraphs (g) and (h) of\\n the clause, or specifically disallowed elsewhere in\\n this contract, the contractor shall be reim-\\n bursed . . . [f]or liabilities (and reasonable expenses\\n incidental to such liabilities, including litigation\\n costs) to third persons not compensated by insur-\\n ance or otherwise.\\nId. (emphasis added). Subparagraph (g), in turn, specifies\\nthat costs “[w]hich are otherwise unallowable by . . . the\\nprovisions of this contract” “shall not be reimbursed.” Id.\\n970.5204-31(g). Subparagraph (h) provides additional ex-\\nceptions to reimbursement, further specifying that costs\\notherwise allowable under the contract are not allowable if\\n“caused by contractor managerial personnel’s (1) [w]illful\\nmisconduct, (2) [l]lack of good faith, or (3) [f]ailure to exer-\\ncise prudent business judgment.” Id. 970.5204-31(h).\\n To be sure, subparagraph (h) imposes narrower re-\\nstrictions on allowability of costs incurred in defending\\nthird party claims than the FAR, but DEAR 970.5204-31\\ndoes not override the FAR provisions that we interpreted\\nin Tecom as disallowing those costs. Although DEAR\\n970.5204-31 specifically identifies a number of exceptions\\nto reimbursement of costs arising from third party claims,\\nit does not follow that all other defense costs are allowable.\\nRather, the DEAR provision merely imposes cumulative re-\\nquirements on allowability and expressly makes the allow-\\nability of defense costs subject to both subparagraphs (g)\\nand (h) and to other provisions of the contract.\\n Indeed, Bechtel admits that under its interpretation of\\nthe contract, the DEAR provision makes the amount of an\\nadverse judgment and costs spent in unsuccessfully de-\\nfending a discrimination suit allowable. But as we have\\nexplained, “pass[ing] such costs on to the government in a\\n\\fBECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES 9\\n\\n\\n\\ncontract context” would be contrary to public policy under\\nthe Supreme Court’s decision in NAACP v. Fed. Power\\nComm’n, 425 U.S. 662 (1976). Tecom, 566 F.3d at 1044.\\n Bechtel relies on Abraham v. Rockwell International\\nCorp., 326 F.3d 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2003), to suggest that the\\nDEAR provision should control over the FAR provisions. In\\nAbraham, we held that a contract clause “particularly di-\\nrected toward providing for the allowability of the very cat-\\negory of costs at issue” controlled over “a more general\\nexclusionary clause.” Id. at 1254. Thus, we concluded that\\nthe contractor’s legal fees and other costs incurred in suc-\\ncessfully defending against environmental criminal\\ncharges were recoverable under the contract. Id. But we\\nrecognized in that case that “there [wa]s a clear conflict [in\\nthe contract] between a clause that expressly provide[d] for\\nthe reimbursement of specific costs . . . and another\\nclause . . . that purportedly require[d] the opposite result,”\\nand we had to “determine which of the conflicting terms\\ncontrol[led].” Id. at 1253–54. There is no such conflict be-\\ntween the DEAR and FAR provisions at issue here. Signif-\\nicantly, Abraham specifically recognized that the existence\\nof carve outs in a general allowability provision that make\\nthe provision “subject to the express disallowance provi-\\nsions of the contract” prevents there from being a conflict.\\nId. at 1250–51.\\n Bechtel also points to the regulatory history of the\\nDEAR provision in support of its interpretation. See Ac-\\nquisition Regulations; Department of Energy Management\\nand Operating Contracts, 62 Fed. Reg. 34,842, 34,844–45\\n(June 27, 1997). In promulgating the final rule, the DOE\\n“illustrate[d] how [the ‘prudent business judgment’ stand-\\nard of DEAR 970.5204-31(h)] will operate in a typical third-\\nparty action” using “[a] sexual harassment suit . . . brought\\nby an employee against the contractor” as an example in\\nresponse to commenters who expressed concern over how\\nthe standard would be interpreted in practice. Id. at\\n\\f10 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n34,844. However, this regulatory history does not suggest\\nthat defense costs associated with such a harassment suit\\nwould be allowed, nor does it state that other provisions of\\nthe FAR should be disregarded in determining whether the\\ncosts under the DEAR provision should be allowed. 2 Fail-\\nure by the contractor to exercise “prudent business judg-\\nment” in incurring costs associated with third party claims\\nis just one way that the costs may be disallowed.\\n We conclude that the standard articulated in Tecom\\napplies to the costs at issue here. Thus, Bechtel’s defense\\ncosts related to the discrimination suits are only allowable\\nif Bechtel can show that the former employees “had very\\nlittle likelihood of success.” Tecom, 566 F.3d at 1039. Be-\\nfore the contracting officer, Bechtel argued that the former\\nemployees’ claims had little likelihood of success on the\\nmerits. However, Bechtel abandoned that argument on ap-\\npeal to the Claims Court. Therefore, we hold that the costs\\nare not allowable under the contract.\\n Bechtel’s remaining arguments do not require a con-\\ntrary result. First, Bechtel contends that the DOE had re-\\nimbursed Bechtel for costs incurred in discrimination cases\\nbefore Tecom and that the DOE’s prior conduct supports\\ninterpreting the contract to allow such costs. But the\\nDEAR provision is clear on its face. The parties’ prior con-\\nduct is only relevant if the contract language is ambiguous.\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Bechtel relies on a statement of the DOE in the\\nFederal Register, which states: “The Department acknowl-\\nedges that third-party actions, including employee discrim-\\nination complaints, are normal business risks, and is not\\nseeking to shift all such risk to the contractor.” Acquisition\\nRegulations; Department of Energy Management and Op-\\nerating Contracts, 62 Fed. Reg. at 34,845. But this regula-\\ntory history does not suggest that the costs here would\\nnecessarily be allowable.\\n\\fBECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES 11\\n\\n\\n\\nTopliff v. Topliff, 122 U.S. 121, 131 (1887); see also Agility\\nLogistics Servs. Co. KSC v. Mattis, 887 F.3d 1143, 1149\\n(Fed. Cir. 2018); Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United\\nStates, 365 F.3d 1345, 1353 n.4, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2004).\\nHere, there is no ambiguity in the contract.\\n Second, Bechtel argues that if Tecom governs the costs\\nhere, then Tecom’s standard could be applied more broadly\\nto disallow costs associated with “any and all alleged con-\\ntract breaches,” and that such a reading would be contrary\\nto the contract. Bechtel Op. Br. 31. However, that issue is\\nnot presented, and we need not address it.\\n Third, Bechtel further contends that it is unfair to im-\\npose these burdens and risks on a contractor in Bechtel’s\\nposition because “the long-standing foundation of DOE\\ncost-type contracting is that [the] DOE assumes virtually\\nall operational and financial risk, given the nature of the\\nwork being performed,” and “contractors . . . might other-\\nwise decline the work given the extreme risks associated\\nwith attempting to immobilize 56 million gallons of highly\\nradioactive liquid waste.” Id. at 29–30. But that is an ar-\\ngument for amending the contract requirements or the\\nFAR provisions. It does not justify our reading the contract\\ncontrary to its express terms.\\n Finally, Bechtel argues that Tecom should be over-\\nruled. As a panel, we are bound by Tecom, and, in any\\nevent, Bechtel has not demonstrated that Tecom is in any\\nway unsound such that the panel should recommend en\\nbanc review pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 35.\\n CONCLUSION\\n The Claims Court correctly applied the standard in\\nTecom in determining whether Bechtel’s defense costs were\\nallowable under the contract. Because Bechtel did not\\nchallenge the contracting officer’s determination that the\\n\\f12 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nformer employees’ claims had more than a very little like-\\nlihood of success, we affirm.\\n AFFIRMED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4417137/\", \"author_raw\": \"DYK, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"NEWMAN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SCHALL"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"DYK"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4639884/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-16\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC.,\n Plaintiff-Appellant\n\n v.\n\n UNITED STATES,\n Defendant-Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2018-2055\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims\nin No. 1:17-cv-00657-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: July 16, 2019\n ______________________\n\n STEPHEN KNIGHT, Smith, Pachter, McWhorter, PLC,\nTysons Corner, VA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also\nrepresented by EDMUND MICHAEL AMOROSI.\n\n GEOFFREY MARTIN LONG, Commercial Litigation\nBranch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-\ntice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also\nrepresented by JOSEPH H. HUNT, ROBERT EDWARD\nKIRSCHMAN, JR., PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.\n ______________________\n\n Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges.\n\f2 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\nDYK, Circuit Judge.\n Bechtel National, Inc. (“Bechtel”) appeals from a deci-\nsion of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims\nCourt”) granting summary judgment in favor of the govern-\nment. The Claims Court held that our decision in Geren v.\nTecom, Inc., 566 F.3d 1037 (Fed. Cir. 2009), precluded re-\nimbursement of costs that Bechtel incurred in defending\ntwo sexual and racial discrimination and retaliation suits\nbrought by former employees.\n We hold that Tecom governs the allowability of\nBechtel’s defense costs and affirm the Claims Court’s deci-\nsion.\n BACKGROUND\n Between 1943 and 1990, the government produced plu-\ntonium for nuclear weapons at the Hanford Site in the state\nof Washington, leaving behind “approximately 56 million\ngallons of nuclear waste” stored in underground tanks.\nBechtel Nat’l, Inc. v. United States, 137 Fed. Cl. 423, 425\n(2018). On December 11, 2000, Bechtel was awarded a\ncost-plus-incentive fee contract by the Department of En-\nergy (“DOE”) “for the design, construction, and operation”\nof a nuclear waste treatment plant at the Hanford Site in\nWashington. Id. The contract incorporated by reference\nprovisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”)\nand the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation\n(“DEAR”).\n During performance of the contract, two former Bechtel\nemployees at the Hanford Site separately sued Bechtel un-\nder 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state law, alleging sexual and ra-\ncial discrimination and subsequent retaliation for raising\ntheir complaints. Bechtel settled these lawsuits and then\nsought $500,000 in reimbursement from the DOE for the\ncosts it incurred in defending the two suits. Bechtel did not\nseek reimbursement for the settlement payments related\n\fBECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES 3\n\n\n\nto the litigation, likely because the settlement amounts\nwere covered by insurance. The DOE provisionally ap-\nproved Bechtel’s request and reimbursed Bechtel for the\nfull amount requested.\n On May 11, 2016, the contracting officer issued a notice\nof intent to disallow the costs. The contracting officer in-\nformed Bechtel that “[he had] determined that the costs in-\ncurred by [Bechtel] in defending these matters [were]\nunallowable under the standards set forth in Tecom.”\nBechtel, 137 Fed. Cl. at 427 (alterations in original).\n Bechtel responded on July 13, 2016, arguing that\nTecom did not govern the allowability of the costs. Rather,\nit contended that a provision of the contract, DEAR\n970.5204-31 (1997), “alone dictates the treatment and re-\nimbursability of legal costs.” J.A. 691. The DEAR provi-\nsion, entitled “Insurance—litigation and claims,” provides:\n (e) Except as provided in subparagraphs (g) and (h)\n of this clause, or specifically disallowed elsewhere\n in this contract, the contractor shall be reim-\n bursed . . .\n (2) For liabilities (and reasonable expenses\n incidental to such liabilities, including liti-\n gation costs) to third persons not compen-\n sated by insurance or otherwise . . . .\n (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this\n contract, the contractor shall not be reimbursed for\n liabilities (and expenses incidental to such liabili-\n ties, including litigation costs, counsel fees, judg-\n ment and settlements)—\n (1) Which are otherwise unallowable by law\n or the provisions of this contract . . . .\n (h) In addition to the cost reimbursement limita-\n tions contained in DEAR 970.3101-3, and notwith-\n standing any other provision of this contract, the\n\f4 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\n contractor’s liabilities to third persons, including\n employees but excluding costs incidental to work-\n ers’ compensation actions, (and any expenses inci-\n dental to such liabilities, including litigation costs,\n counsel fees, judgments and settlements) shall not\n be reimbursed if such liabilities were caused by\n contractor managerial personnel’s\n (1) Willful misconduct,\n (2) Lack of good faith, or\n (3) Failure to exercise prudent business\n judgment . . . .\nDEAR 970.5204-31 (emphases added).\n On September 13, 2016, the contracting officer issued\na final decision disallowing the costs. Because the govern-\nment had already reimbursed Bechtel, the decision stated\nthat “the government would offset the amount it had pro-\nvisionally reimbursed Bechtel from future amounts the\ngovernment owed to it as a result.” Bechtel, 137 Fed. Cl. at\n427.\n On May 18, 2017, Bechtel brought suit in the Claims\nCourt challenging the contracting officer’s final decision\nand seeking reimbursement of the defense costs. See 41\nU.S.C. § 7104(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2). The parties\nfiled cross-motions for summary judgment. The Claims\nCourt granted the government’s motion for summary judg-\nment, concluding that Tecom provided the proper standard\nfor determining whether the defense costs were allowable\nunder the contract and holding that the costs were not al-\nlowable.\n Bechtel timely appealed to this court. We have juris-\ndiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We review a\ngrant of summary judgment by the Claims Court de novo.\nNorthrop Grumman Computing Sys., Inc. v. United States,\n823 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016).\n\fBECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES 5\n\n\n\n DISCUSSION\n I\n Tecom involved a dispute over whether costs associated\nwith settling an employment discrimination lawsuit were\nallowable costs under a government contract that incorpo-\nrated provisions of the FAR. 566 F.3d at 1040. “[A] former\nemployee [had] sued Tecom under Title VII, alleging sexual\nharassment and firing in retaliation for filing a sexual har-\nassment charge.” Id. at 1039. The alleged conduct, if\nproven, would have violated Title VII. Id. After settling\nthe suit, the contractor sought reimbursement from the\ngovernment for defense costs and settlement payments as-\nsociated with the lawsuit. Id.\n The contract incorporated FAR 31.201-2, which states\nthat costs incurred by the contractor are “allowable only\nwhen the cost complies with . . . [t]erms of the contract.”\nId. at 1040 (quoting FAR 31.201-2). One of the terms of the\ncontract at issue was FAR 52.222-26 (1984), which pro-\nvided that “[t]he Contractor shall not discriminate against\nany employee or applicant for employment because of race,\ncolor, religion, sex, or national origin.” Id. at 1039 (quoting\nFAR 52.222-26).\n We articulated a standard for determining when costs\nincurred by a contractor in defending and settling third\nparty claims are allowable under a government contract:\n“(1) we ask whether, if an adverse judgment [had been]\nreached, the damages, costs, and attorney’s fees would be\nallowable; (2) if not, we ask whether the costs of settlement\nwould be allowable.” Id. at 1041 (citing Boeing N. Am., Inc.\nv. Roche, 298 F.3d 1274, 1285–89 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).\n As to the first step, we concluded that “the damages,\ncosts, and attorney’s fees associated with a violation of Ti-\ntle VII would not be allowable under this contract.” Id. Be-\ncause “[s]exual harassment is a form of sex\n\f6 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\ndiscrimination,” we determined that “the alleged discrimi-\nnation would [have] clearly violate[d] the contract.” Id. at\n1043–44. Thus, we held that “costs associated with an ad-\nverse judgment on the merits would not be allowable” un-\nder FAR 31.201-2. Id. at 1044. Our conclusion was\n“underscored by the clear public policy of Title VII,” which\n“prevent[s] the government from being complicit in paying\nfor discriminatory employment practices.” Id. at 1044.\n As to the second step—i.e., whether the costs are none-\ntheless allowable when the contractor settles before an ad-\nverse judgment—we determined that our decision in\nBoeing “squarely addressed” that issue. Id. at 1045. We\nheld that, under Boeing, “[w]here the damages or penalties\npaid in the event of an adverse judgment are disallowed,”\nsettlement costs are also unallowable unless the contractor\ncan establish that the plaintiff in the discrimination suit\n“had very little likelihood of success on the merits.” Id. at\n1046.\n II\n The contract at issue here incorporated FAR 31.201-2\n(2000) and FAR 52.222-26 (1999)—the very same provi-\nsions of the FAR that we held barred reimbursement in\nTecom. 1 Further, although the former employees brought\n\n\n 1 Both the Tecom contract and the contract here in-\ncorporated the pre-2004 version of FAR 31.201-2, and in\nTecom, we treated the pre-2004 version as equivalent to the\npost-2004 version. See 566 F.3d at 1039–40. The prefatory\nlanguage of that section was revised in 2004 from “[t]he\nfactors to be considered in determining whether a cost is\nallowable include the following” to “[a] cost is allowable\nonly when the cost complies with all of the following re-\nquirements,” compare FAR 31.201-2 (2000) with\nFAR 31.201-2 (2004), but the amendment was not a sub-\nstantive change. In both instances “Terms of the contract”\n\fBECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES 7\n\n\n\ntheir discrimination claims against Bechtel under § 1981\nand state law, rather than under Title VII (as was the case\nin Tecom), sexual and racial discrimination in violation of\n§ 1981 and state anti-discrimination law would be a text-\nbook breach of FAR 52.222-26. Bechtel makes no argument\nto the contrary.\n Tecom recognized that the analysis for determining\nwhether the costs are allowable could change if there was\na contract provision “dictat[ing] the treatment of specific\ncosts.” 566 F.3d at 1041. Bechtel argues that Tecom does\nnot govern allowability of the costs here because the con-\ntract incorporated such a provision dictating the treatment\nof specific costs, namely DEAR 970.5204-31. That provi-\nsion was not incorporated in the Tecom contract. According\nto Bechtel, that provision “makes costs incurred in defense\nof third party claims, including employment discrimination\nclaims, presumptively allowable.” Bechtel Op. Br. 21. We\nconclude that DEAR 970.5204-31 is not a specific provision\nmaking allowable the defense costs.\n The DEAR provision generally provides for reimburse-\nment of contractor liabilities to third parties and “litigation\ncosts.” DEAR 970.5204-31(e). This allowability provision\nis subject to certain exceptions. The provision makes clear\nin two separate places that costs disallowed by other\n\n\n\n\nwas listed. In promulgating the final rule, the agency made\nclear that the revision did not “constitute[] a major change\nin determining allowability” and merely made the lan-\nguage of the provision “consistent with established case\nlaw, i.e., a cost must meet all five factors to be allowable.”\nFederal Acquisition Regulation; General Provisions of the\nCost Principles, 69 Fed. Reg. 17,764, 17,765 (Apr. 5, 2004).\nBechtel does not argue there is a substantive difference be-\ntween the pre-2004 and post-2004 versions.\n\f8 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\nprovisions of the contract are not allowable. First, the\nDEAR provision states that\n [e]xcept as provided in subparagraphs (g) and (h) of\n the clause, or specifically disallowed elsewhere in\n this contract, the contractor shall be reim-\n bursed . . . [f]or liabilities (and reasonable expenses\n incidental to such liabilities, including litigation\n costs) to third persons not compensated by insur-\n ance or otherwise.\nId. (emphasis added). Subparagraph (g), in turn, specifies\nthat costs “[w]hich are otherwise unallowable by . . . the\nprovisions of this contract” “shall not be reimbursed.” Id.\n970.5204-31(g). Subparagraph (h) provides additional ex-\nceptions to reimbursement, further specifying that costs\notherwise allowable under the contract are not allowable if\n“caused by contractor managerial personnel’s (1) [w]illful\nmisconduct, (2) [l]lack of good faith, or (3) [f]ailure to exer-\ncise prudent business judgment.” Id. 970.5204-31(h).\n To be sure, subparagraph (h) imposes narrower re-\nstrictions on allowability of costs incurred in defending\nthird party claims than the FAR, but DEAR 970.5204-31\ndoes not override the FAR provisions that we interpreted\nin Tecom as disallowing those costs. Although DEAR\n970.5204-31 specifically identifies a number of exceptions\nto reimbursement of costs arising from third party claims,\nit does not follow that all other defense costs are allowable.\nRather, the DEAR provision merely imposes cumulative re-\nquirements on allowability and expressly makes the allow-\nability of defense costs subject to both subparagraphs (g)\nand (h) and to other provisions of the contract.\n Indeed, Bechtel admits that under its interpretation of\nthe contract, the DEAR provision makes the amount of an\nadverse judgment and costs spent in unsuccessfully de-\nfending a discrimination suit allowable. But as we have\nexplained, “pass[ing] such costs on to the government in a\n\fBECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES 9\n\n\n\ncontract context” would be contrary to public policy under\nthe Supreme Court’s decision in NAACP v. Fed. Power\nComm’n, 425 U.S. 662 (1976). Tecom, 566 F.3d at 1044.\n Bechtel relies on Abraham v. Rockwell International\nCorp., 326 F.3d 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2003), to suggest that the\nDEAR provision should control over the FAR provisions. In\nAbraham, we held that a contract clause “particularly di-\nrected toward providing for the allowability of the very cat-\negory of costs at issue” controlled over “a more general\nexclusionary clause.” Id. at 1254. Thus, we concluded that\nthe contractor’s legal fees and other costs incurred in suc-\ncessfully defending against environmental criminal\ncharges were recoverable under the contract. Id. But we\nrecognized in that case that “there [wa]s a clear conflict [in\nthe contract] between a clause that expressly provide[d] for\nthe reimbursement of specific costs . . . and another\nclause . . . that purportedly require[d] the opposite result,”\nand we had to “determine which of the conflicting terms\ncontrol[led].” Id. at 1253–54. There is no such conflict be-\ntween the DEAR and FAR provisions at issue here. Signif-\nicantly, Abraham specifically recognized that the existence\nof carve outs in a general allowability provision that make\nthe provision “subject to the express disallowance provi-\nsions of the contract” prevents there from being a conflict.\nId. at 1250–51.\n Bechtel also points to the regulatory history of the\nDEAR provision in support of its interpretation. See Ac-\nquisition Regulations; Department of Energy Management\nand Operating Contracts, 62 Fed. Reg. 34,842, 34,844–45\n(June 27, 1997). In promulgating the final rule, the DOE\n“illustrate[d] how [the ‘prudent business judgment’ stand-\nard of DEAR 970.5204-31(h)] will operate in a typical third-\nparty action” using “[a] sexual harassment suit . . . brought\nby an employee against the contractor” as an example in\nresponse to commenters who expressed concern over how\nthe standard would be interpreted in practice. Id. at\n\f10 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\n34,844. However, this regulatory history does not suggest\nthat defense costs associated with such a harassment suit\nwould be allowed, nor does it state that other provisions of\nthe FAR should be disregarded in determining whether the\ncosts under the DEAR provision should be allowed. 2 Fail-\nure by the contractor to exercise “prudent business judg-\nment” in incurring costs associated with third party claims\nis just one way that the costs may be disallowed.\n We conclude that the standard articulated in Tecom\napplies to the costs at issue here. Thus, Bechtel’s defense\ncosts related to the discrimination suits are only allowable\nif Bechtel can show that the former employees “had very\nlittle likelihood of success.” Tecom, 566 F.3d at 1039. Be-\nfore the contracting officer, Bechtel argued that the former\nemployees’ claims had little likelihood of success on the\nmerits. However, Bechtel abandoned that argument on ap-\npeal to the Claims Court. Therefore, we hold that the costs\nare not allowable under the contract.\n Bechtel’s remaining arguments do not require a con-\ntrary result. First, Bechtel contends that the DOE had re-\nimbursed Bechtel for costs incurred in discrimination cases\nbefore Tecom and that the DOE’s prior conduct supports\ninterpreting the contract to allow such costs. But the\nDEAR provision is clear on its face. The parties’ prior con-\nduct is only relevant if the contract language is ambiguous.\n\n\n\n 2 Bechtel relies on a statement of the DOE in the\nFederal Register, which states: “The Department acknowl-\nedges that third-party actions, including employee discrim-\nination complaints, are normal business risks, and is not\nseeking to shift all such risk to the contractor.” Acquisition\nRegulations; Department of Energy Management and Op-\nerating Contracts, 62 Fed. Reg. at 34,845. But this regula-\ntory history does not suggest that the costs here would\nnecessarily be allowable.\n\fBECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES 11\n\n\n\nTopliff v. Topliff, 122 U.S. 121, 131 (1887); see also Agility\nLogistics Servs. Co. KSC v. Mattis, 887 F.3d 1143, 1149\n(Fed. Cir. 2018); Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United\nStates, 365 F.3d 1345, 1353 n.4, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2004).\nHere, there is no ambiguity in the contract.\n Second, Bechtel argues that if Tecom governs the costs\nhere, then Tecom’s standard could be applied more broadly\nto disallow costs associated with “any and all alleged con-\ntract breaches,” and that such a reading would be contrary\nto the contract. Bechtel Op. Br. 31. However, that issue is\nnot presented, and we need not address it.\n Third, Bechtel further contends that it is unfair to im-\npose these burdens and risks on a contractor in Bechtel’s\nposition because “the long-standing foundation of DOE\ncost-type contracting is that [the] DOE assumes virtually\nall operational and financial risk, given the nature of the\nwork being performed,” and “contractors . . . might other-\nwise decline the work given the extreme risks associated\nwith attempting to immobilize 56 million gallons of highly\nradioactive liquid waste.” Id. at 29–30. But that is an ar-\ngument for amending the contract requirements or the\nFAR provisions. It does not justify our reading the contract\ncontrary to its express terms.\n Finally, Bechtel argues that Tecom should be over-\nruled. As a panel, we are bound by Tecom, and, in any\nevent, Bechtel has not demonstrated that Tecom is in any\nway unsound such that the panel should recommend en\nbanc review pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 35.\n CONCLUSION\n The Claims Court correctly applied the standard in\nTecom in determining whether Bechtel’s defense costs were\nallowable under the contract. Because Bechtel did not\nchallenge the contracting officer’s determination that the\n\f12 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\n\n\n\n\nformer employees’ claims had more than a very little like-\nlihood of success, we affirm.\n AFFIRMED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-16\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC.,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n UNITED STATES,\\n Defendant-Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-2055\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims\\nin No. 1:17-cv-00657-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 16, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n STEPHEN KNIGHT, Smith, Pachter, McWhorter, PLC,\\nTysons Corner, VA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also\\nrepresented by EDMUND MICHAEL AMOROSI.\\n\\n GEOFFREY MARTIN LONG, Commercial Litigation\\nBranch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-\\ntice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also\\nrepresented by JOSEPH H. HUNT, ROBERT EDWARD\\nKIRSCHMAN, JR., PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f2 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nDYK, Circuit Judge.\\n Bechtel National, Inc. (“Bechtel”) appeals from a deci-\\nsion of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims\\nCourt”) granting summary judgment in favor of the govern-\\nment. The Claims Court held that our decision in Geren v.\\nTecom, Inc., 566 F.3d 1037 (Fed. Cir. 2009), precluded re-\\nimbursement of costs that Bechtel incurred in defending\\ntwo sexual and racial discrimination and retaliation suits\\nbrought by former employees.\\n We hold that Tecom governs the allowability of\\nBechtel’s defense costs and affirm the Claims Court’s deci-\\nsion.\\n BACKGROUND\\n Between 1943 and 1990, the government produced plu-\\ntonium for nuclear weapons at the Hanford Site in the state\\nof Washington, leaving behind “approximately 56 million\\ngallons of nuclear waste” stored in underground tanks.\\nBechtel Nat’l, Inc. v. United States, 137 Fed. Cl. 423, 425\\n(2018). On December 11, 2000, Bechtel was awarded a\\ncost-plus-incentive fee contract by the Department of En-\\nergy (“DOE”) “for the design, construction, and operation”\\nof a nuclear waste treatment plant at the Hanford Site in\\nWashington. Id. The contract incorporated by reference\\nprovisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”)\\nand the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation\\n(“DEAR”).\\n During performance of the contract, two former Bechtel\\nemployees at the Hanford Site separately sued Bechtel un-\\nder 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state law, alleging sexual and ra-\\ncial discrimination and subsequent retaliation for raising\\ntheir complaints. Bechtel settled these lawsuits and then\\nsought $500,000 in reimbursement from the DOE for the\\ncosts it incurred in defending the two suits. Bechtel did not\\nseek reimbursement for the settlement payments related\\n\\fBECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES 3\\n\\n\\n\\nto the litigation, likely because the settlement amounts\\nwere covered by insurance. The DOE provisionally ap-\\nproved Bechtel’s request and reimbursed Bechtel for the\\nfull amount requested.\\n On May 11, 2016, the contracting officer issued a notice\\nof intent to disallow the costs. The contracting officer in-\\nformed Bechtel that “[he had] determined that the costs in-\\ncurred by [Bechtel] in defending these matters [were]\\nunallowable under the standards set forth in Tecom.”\\nBechtel, 137 Fed. Cl. at 427 (alterations in original).\\n Bechtel responded on July 13, 2016, arguing that\\nTecom did not govern the allowability of the costs. Rather,\\nit contended that a provision of the contract, DEAR\\n970.5204-31 (1997), “alone dictates the treatment and re-\\nimbursability of legal costs.” J.A. 691. The DEAR provi-\\nsion, entitled “Insurance—litigation and claims,” provides:\\n (e) Except as provided in subparagraphs (g) and (h)\\n of this clause, or specifically disallowed elsewhere\\n in this contract, the contractor shall be reim-\\n bursed . . .\\n (2) For liabilities (and reasonable expenses\\n incidental to such liabilities, including liti-\\n gation costs) to third persons not compen-\\n sated by insurance or otherwise . . . .\\n (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this\\n contract, the contractor shall not be reimbursed for\\n liabilities (and expenses incidental to such liabili-\\n ties, including litigation costs, counsel fees, judg-\\n ment and settlements)—\\n (1) Which are otherwise unallowable by law\\n or the provisions of this contract . . . .\\n (h) In addition to the cost reimbursement limita-\\n tions contained in DEAR 970.3101-3, and notwith-\\n standing any other provision of this contract, the\\n\\f4 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n contractor’s liabilities to third persons, including\\n employees but excluding costs incidental to work-\\n ers’ compensation actions, (and any expenses inci-\\n dental to such liabilities, including litigation costs,\\n counsel fees, judgments and settlements) shall not\\n be reimbursed if such liabilities were caused by\\n contractor managerial personnel’s\\n (1) Willful misconduct,\\n (2) Lack of good faith, or\\n (3) Failure to exercise prudent business\\n judgment . . . .\\nDEAR 970.5204-31 (emphases added).\\n On September 13, 2016, the contracting officer issued\\na final decision disallowing the costs. Because the govern-\\nment had already reimbursed Bechtel, the decision stated\\nthat “the government would offset the amount it had pro-\\nvisionally reimbursed Bechtel from future amounts the\\ngovernment owed to it as a result.” Bechtel, 137 Fed. Cl. at\\n427.\\n On May 18, 2017, Bechtel brought suit in the Claims\\nCourt challenging the contracting officer’s final decision\\nand seeking reimbursement of the defense costs. See 41\\nU.S.C. § 7104(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2). The parties\\nfiled cross-motions for summary judgment. The Claims\\nCourt granted the government’s motion for summary judg-\\nment, concluding that Tecom provided the proper standard\\nfor determining whether the defense costs were allowable\\nunder the contract and holding that the costs were not al-\\nlowable.\\n Bechtel timely appealed to this court. We have juris-\\ndiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We review a\\ngrant of summary judgment by the Claims Court de novo.\\nNorthrop Grumman Computing Sys., Inc. v. United States,\\n823 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016).\\n\\fBECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES 5\\n\\n\\n\\n DISCUSSION\\n I\\n Tecom involved a dispute over whether costs associated\\nwith settling an employment discrimination lawsuit were\\nallowable costs under a government contract that incorpo-\\nrated provisions of the FAR. 566 F.3d at 1040. “[A] former\\nemployee [had] sued Tecom under Title VII, alleging sexual\\nharassment and firing in retaliation for filing a sexual har-\\nassment charge.” Id. at 1039. The alleged conduct, if\\nproven, would have violated Title VII. Id. After settling\\nthe suit, the contractor sought reimbursement from the\\ngovernment for defense costs and settlement payments as-\\nsociated with the lawsuit. Id.\\n The contract incorporated FAR 31.201-2, which states\\nthat costs incurred by the contractor are “allowable only\\nwhen the cost complies with . . . [t]erms of the contract.”\\nId. at 1040 (quoting FAR 31.201-2). One of the terms of the\\ncontract at issue was FAR 52.222-26 (1984), which pro-\\nvided that “[t]he Contractor shall not discriminate against\\nany employee or applicant for employment because of race,\\ncolor, religion, sex, or national origin.” Id. at 1039 (quoting\\nFAR 52.222-26).\\n We articulated a standard for determining when costs\\nincurred by a contractor in defending and settling third\\nparty claims are allowable under a government contract:\\n“(1) we ask whether, if an adverse judgment [had been]\\nreached, the damages, costs, and attorney’s fees would be\\nallowable; (2) if not, we ask whether the costs of settlement\\nwould be allowable.” Id. at 1041 (citing Boeing N. Am., Inc.\\nv. Roche, 298 F.3d 1274, 1285–89 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).\\n As to the first step, we concluded that “the damages,\\ncosts, and attorney’s fees associated with a violation of Ti-\\ntle VII would not be allowable under this contract.” Id. Be-\\ncause “[s]exual harassment is a form of sex\\n\\f6 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ndiscrimination,” we determined that “the alleged discrimi-\\nnation would [have] clearly violate[d] the contract.” Id. at\\n1043–44. Thus, we held that “costs associated with an ad-\\nverse judgment on the merits would not be allowable” un-\\nder FAR 31.201-2. Id. at 1044. Our conclusion was\\n“underscored by the clear public policy of Title VII,” which\\n“prevent[s] the government from being complicit in paying\\nfor discriminatory employment practices.” Id. at 1044.\\n As to the second step—i.e., whether the costs are none-\\ntheless allowable when the contractor settles before an ad-\\nverse judgment—we determined that our decision in\\nBoeing “squarely addressed” that issue. Id. at 1045. We\\nheld that, under Boeing, “[w]here the damages or penalties\\npaid in the event of an adverse judgment are disallowed,”\\nsettlement costs are also unallowable unless the contractor\\ncan establish that the plaintiff in the discrimination suit\\n“had very little likelihood of success on the merits.” Id. at\\n1046.\\n II\\n The contract at issue here incorporated FAR 31.201-2\\n(2000) and FAR 52.222-26 (1999)—the very same provi-\\nsions of the FAR that we held barred reimbursement in\\nTecom. 1 Further, although the former employees brought\\n\\n\\n 1 Both the Tecom contract and the contract here in-\\ncorporated the pre-2004 version of FAR 31.201-2, and in\\nTecom, we treated the pre-2004 version as equivalent to the\\npost-2004 version. See 566 F.3d at 1039–40. The prefatory\\nlanguage of that section was revised in 2004 from “[t]he\\nfactors to be considered in determining whether a cost is\\nallowable include the following” to “[a] cost is allowable\\nonly when the cost complies with all of the following re-\\nquirements,” compare FAR 31.201-2 (2000) with\\nFAR 31.201-2 (2004), but the amendment was not a sub-\\nstantive change. In both instances “Terms of the contract”\\n\\fBECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES 7\\n\\n\\n\\ntheir discrimination claims against Bechtel under § 1981\\nand state law, rather than under Title VII (as was the case\\nin Tecom), sexual and racial discrimination in violation of\\n§ 1981 and state anti-discrimination law would be a text-\\nbook breach of FAR 52.222-26. Bechtel makes no argument\\nto the contrary.\\n Tecom recognized that the analysis for determining\\nwhether the costs are allowable could change if there was\\na contract provision “dictat[ing] the treatment of specific\\ncosts.” 566 F.3d at 1041. Bechtel argues that Tecom does\\nnot govern allowability of the costs here because the con-\\ntract incorporated such a provision dictating the treatment\\nof specific costs, namely DEAR 970.5204-31. That provi-\\nsion was not incorporated in the Tecom contract. According\\nto Bechtel, that provision “makes costs incurred in defense\\nof third party claims, including employment discrimination\\nclaims, presumptively allowable.” Bechtel Op. Br. 21. We\\nconclude that DEAR 970.5204-31 is not a specific provision\\nmaking allowable the defense costs.\\n The DEAR provision generally provides for reimburse-\\nment of contractor liabilities to third parties and “litigation\\ncosts.” DEAR 970.5204-31(e). This allowability provision\\nis subject to certain exceptions. The provision makes clear\\nin two separate places that costs disallowed by other\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nwas listed. In promulgating the final rule, the agency made\\nclear that the revision did not “constitute[] a major change\\nin determining allowability” and merely made the lan-\\nguage of the provision “consistent with established case\\nlaw, i.e., a cost must meet all five factors to be allowable.”\\nFederal Acquisition Regulation; General Provisions of the\\nCost Principles, 69 Fed. Reg. 17,764, 17,765 (Apr. 5, 2004).\\nBechtel does not argue there is a substantive difference be-\\ntween the pre-2004 and post-2004 versions.\\n\\f8 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nprovisions of the contract are not allowable. First, the\\nDEAR provision states that\\n [e]xcept as provided in subparagraphs (g) and (h) of\\n the clause, or specifically disallowed elsewhere in\\n this contract, the contractor shall be reim-\\n bursed . . . [f]or liabilities (and reasonable expenses\\n incidental to such liabilities, including litigation\\n costs) to third persons not compensated by insur-\\n ance or otherwise.\\nId. (emphasis added). Subparagraph (g), in turn, specifies\\nthat costs “[w]hich are otherwise unallowable by . . . the\\nprovisions of this contract” “shall not be reimbursed.” Id.\\n970.5204-31(g). Subparagraph (h) provides additional ex-\\nceptions to reimbursement, further specifying that costs\\notherwise allowable under the contract are not allowable if\\n“caused by contractor managerial personnel’s (1) [w]illful\\nmisconduct, (2) [l]lack of good faith, or (3) [f]ailure to exer-\\ncise prudent business judgment.” Id. 970.5204-31(h).\\n To be sure, subparagraph (h) imposes narrower re-\\nstrictions on allowability of costs incurred in defending\\nthird party claims than the FAR, but DEAR 970.5204-31\\ndoes not override the FAR provisions that we interpreted\\nin Tecom as disallowing those costs. Although DEAR\\n970.5204-31 specifically identifies a number of exceptions\\nto reimbursement of costs arising from third party claims,\\nit does not follow that all other defense costs are allowable.\\nRather, the DEAR provision merely imposes cumulative re-\\nquirements on allowability and expressly makes the allow-\\nability of defense costs subject to both subparagraphs (g)\\nand (h) and to other provisions of the contract.\\n Indeed, Bechtel admits that under its interpretation of\\nthe contract, the DEAR provision makes the amount of an\\nadverse judgment and costs spent in unsuccessfully de-\\nfending a discrimination suit allowable. But as we have\\nexplained, “pass[ing] such costs on to the government in a\\n\\fBECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES 9\\n\\n\\n\\ncontract context” would be contrary to public policy under\\nthe Supreme Court’s decision in NAACP v. Fed. Power\\nComm’n, 425 U.S. 662 (1976). Tecom, 566 F.3d at 1044.\\n Bechtel relies on Abraham v. Rockwell International\\nCorp., 326 F.3d 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2003), to suggest that the\\nDEAR provision should control over the FAR provisions. In\\nAbraham, we held that a contract clause “particularly di-\\nrected toward providing for the allowability of the very cat-\\negory of costs at issue” controlled over “a more general\\nexclusionary clause.” Id. at 1254. Thus, we concluded that\\nthe contractor’s legal fees and other costs incurred in suc-\\ncessfully defending against environmental criminal\\ncharges were recoverable under the contract. Id. But we\\nrecognized in that case that “there [wa]s a clear conflict [in\\nthe contract] between a clause that expressly provide[d] for\\nthe reimbursement of specific costs . . . and another\\nclause . . . that purportedly require[d] the opposite result,”\\nand we had to “determine which of the conflicting terms\\ncontrol[led].” Id. at 1253–54. There is no such conflict be-\\ntween the DEAR and FAR provisions at issue here. Signif-\\nicantly, Abraham specifically recognized that the existence\\nof carve outs in a general allowability provision that make\\nthe provision “subject to the express disallowance provi-\\nsions of the contract” prevents there from being a conflict.\\nId. at 1250–51.\\n Bechtel also points to the regulatory history of the\\nDEAR provision in support of its interpretation. See Ac-\\nquisition Regulations; Department of Energy Management\\nand Operating Contracts, 62 Fed. Reg. 34,842, 34,844–45\\n(June 27, 1997). In promulgating the final rule, the DOE\\n“illustrate[d] how [the ‘prudent business judgment’ stand-\\nard of DEAR 970.5204-31(h)] will operate in a typical third-\\nparty action” using “[a] sexual harassment suit . . . brought\\nby an employee against the contractor” as an example in\\nresponse to commenters who expressed concern over how\\nthe standard would be interpreted in practice. Id. at\\n\\f10 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n34,844. However, this regulatory history does not suggest\\nthat defense costs associated with such a harassment suit\\nwould be allowed, nor does it state that other provisions of\\nthe FAR should be disregarded in determining whether the\\ncosts under the DEAR provision should be allowed. 2 Fail-\\nure by the contractor to exercise “prudent business judg-\\nment” in incurring costs associated with third party claims\\nis just one way that the costs may be disallowed.\\n We conclude that the standard articulated in Tecom\\napplies to the costs at issue here. Thus, Bechtel’s defense\\ncosts related to the discrimination suits are only allowable\\nif Bechtel can show that the former employees “had very\\nlittle likelihood of success.” Tecom, 566 F.3d at 1039. Be-\\nfore the contracting officer, Bechtel argued that the former\\nemployees’ claims had little likelihood of success on the\\nmerits. However, Bechtel abandoned that argument on ap-\\npeal to the Claims Court. Therefore, we hold that the costs\\nare not allowable under the contract.\\n Bechtel’s remaining arguments do not require a con-\\ntrary result. First, Bechtel contends that the DOE had re-\\nimbursed Bechtel for costs incurred in discrimination cases\\nbefore Tecom and that the DOE’s prior conduct supports\\ninterpreting the contract to allow such costs. But the\\nDEAR provision is clear on its face. The parties’ prior con-\\nduct is only relevant if the contract language is ambiguous.\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Bechtel relies on a statement of the DOE in the\\nFederal Register, which states: “The Department acknowl-\\nedges that third-party actions, including employee discrim-\\nination complaints, are normal business risks, and is not\\nseeking to shift all such risk to the contractor.” Acquisition\\nRegulations; Department of Energy Management and Op-\\nerating Contracts, 62 Fed. Reg. at 34,845. But this regula-\\ntory history does not suggest that the costs here would\\nnecessarily be allowable.\\n\\fBECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES 11\\n\\n\\n\\nTopliff v. Topliff, 122 U.S. 121, 131 (1887); see also Agility\\nLogistics Servs. Co. KSC v. Mattis, 887 F.3d 1143, 1149\\n(Fed. Cir. 2018); Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United\\nStates, 365 F.3d 1345, 1353 n.4, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2004).\\nHere, there is no ambiguity in the contract.\\n Second, Bechtel argues that if Tecom governs the costs\\nhere, then Tecom’s standard could be applied more broadly\\nto disallow costs associated with “any and all alleged con-\\ntract breaches,” and that such a reading would be contrary\\nto the contract. Bechtel Op. Br. 31. However, that issue is\\nnot presented, and we need not address it.\\n Third, Bechtel further contends that it is unfair to im-\\npose these burdens and risks on a contractor in Bechtel’s\\nposition because “the long-standing foundation of DOE\\ncost-type contracting is that [the] DOE assumes virtually\\nall operational and financial risk, given the nature of the\\nwork being performed,” and “contractors . . . might other-\\nwise decline the work given the extreme risks associated\\nwith attempting to immobilize 56 million gallons of highly\\nradioactive liquid waste.” Id. at 29–30. But that is an ar-\\ngument for amending the contract requirements or the\\nFAR provisions. It does not justify our reading the contract\\ncontrary to its express terms.\\n Finally, Bechtel argues that Tecom should be over-\\nruled. As a panel, we are bound by Tecom, and, in any\\nevent, Bechtel has not demonstrated that Tecom is in any\\nway unsound such that the panel should recommend en\\nbanc review pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 35.\\n CONCLUSION\\n The Claims Court correctly applied the standard in\\nTecom in determining whether Bechtel’s defense costs were\\nallowable under the contract. Because Bechtel did not\\nchallenge the contracting officer’s determination that the\\n\\f12 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nformer employees’ claims had more than a very little like-\\nlihood of success, we affirm.\\n AFFIRMED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3498,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4640255,"string":"4,640,255"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD, Appellant v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Appellee"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Hejran Hejrat Co. Ltd v. US Army Corps of Engineers"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-17"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"2018-2206"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Newman, Dyk, Wallach\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"DYK, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-2206\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Ap-\\npeals in No. 61234, Administrative Judge Donald Evan\\nKinner, Administrative Judge J. Reid Prouty, Administra-\\ntive Judge Richard Shackleford.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 17, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n JOSEPH ALOYSIUS HENNESSEY, The Law Office of Jo-\\nseph Hennessey, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD, argued for appel-\\nlant.\\n\\n JESSICA R. TOPLIN, Commercial Litigation Branch,\\nCivil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-\\nington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by\\nJOSEPH H. HUNT, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.,\\nPATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.\\n ______________________\\n\\f2 HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Before NEWMAN, DYK, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.\\nDYK, Circuit Judge.\\n Hejran Hejrat Co. Ltd. (“HHL”) appeals from a decision\\nby the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”)\\ndismissing HHL’s case for lack of jurisdiction. Because we\\nconclude that there was a request for a final decision by a\\ncontracting officer and a final decision entered by the con-\\ntracting officer, we reverse and remand for further proceed-\\nings.\\n BACKGROUND\\n This appeal arises from HHL’s 2011 contract with the\\nUnited States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) to pro-\\nvide transportation services in Afghanistan. After the con-\\ntract expired, HHL requested additional compensation\\nfrom the USACE based on alleged violations of the con-\\ntract: suspension of work, changes to the contract require-\\nments, and termination of the original contract. After\\nvarious preliminary submissions, on March 5, 2015, HHL\\nsubmitted a document entitled “Request for Equitable Ad-\\njustment (REA)” with a sworn statement by HHL’s Deputy\\nManaging Director having “full management [authority]\\nto . . . close out . . . the contract.” J.A. 70. In that submis-\\nsion, HHL requested that the submission be “treated as\\na[n] REA,” J.A. 74, and requested $4,137,964 in compensa-\\ntion. The contracting officer denied HHL’s request on\\nMarch 26, 2017, in what the contracting officer character-\\nized as the “Government’s final determination in this mat-\\nter.” J.A. 116. HHL appealed the decision, but the Board\\nconcluded that it did not have jurisdiction because “[a]t no\\npoint, in six years of communication with the [USACE], has\\nHHL requested a contracting officer’s final decision.”\\nJ.A. 4.\\n HHL appealed to our court. We have jurisdiction pur-\\nsuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10). We review the Board’s\\n\\fHEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 3\\n\\n\\n\\ndetermination of its jurisdiction de novo. Reflectone, Inc. v.\\nDalton, 60 F.3d 1572, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).\\n DISCUSSION\\n In order for the Board to have jurisdiction, there must\\nbe a final decision by a contracting officer on a claim. Par-\\nsons Glob. Servs. v. McHugh, 677 F.3d 1166, 1170 (Fed. Cir.\\n2012) (citing 41 U.S.C. § 7103). The issue on appeal is\\nwhether HHL requested a contracting officer’s final deci-\\nsion on a claim, such that the officer’s denial constituted a\\nfinal decision that supported the Board’s jurisdiction.\\n The statute provides that “[e]ach claim by a contractor\\nagainst the Federal Government relating to a contract\\nshall be submitted to the contracting officer for a decision.”\\n41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(1). Thus, in order to constitute a claim\\na contractor must request a final decision by a contracting\\nofficer. M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609\\nF.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing James M. Ellet\\nConst. Co., v. United States, 93 F.3d 1537, 1543 (Fed. Cir.\\n1996)) (“The CDA . . . requires that a claim indicate to the\\ncontracting officer that the contractor is requesting a final\\ndecision.”).\\n “[W]e evaluate whether a particular request for pay-\\nment amounts to a claim based on the [Federal Acquisition\\nRegulations (FARs),] . . . the language of the contract in\\ndispute, and the facts of each case.” Parsons, 677 F.3d at\\n1170. Under the relevant FAR, a claim is defined as “a writ-\\nten demand or written assertion by one of the contracting\\nparties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money\\nin sum certain.” FAR 52.233-1(c) (2002).\\n HHL contends that its March 5, 2015, submission con-\\nstituted a claim within the meaning of the CDA. There is\\nno dispute that HHL’s March 5 submission was under the\\nFAR a “written demand . . . seeking, as a matter of right,\\nthe payment of money in sum certain.” Id. Indeed, the\\nBoard found that in its submissions “HHL adequately\\n\\f4 HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ndescribed five grounds why it is owed more money, and the\\nsum certain being requested for each.” J.A. 4.\\n On appeal the government makes three arguments as\\nto why HHL’s submission did not constitute a request for a\\nfinal decision. First, the government’s “[f]oremost” argu-\\nment is that “HHL’s March 5, 2015, submission is styled as\\na[n] REA, not as a claim. HHL also expressly requested\\nthat the document be ‘treated as an REA.’” Gov’t Br. at 12\\n(internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). The govern-\\nment’s argument that an REA cannot constitute a claim is\\ndirectly contrary to this court’s en banc decision in Reflec-\\ntone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc),\\nand subsequent cases. Just as in the current appeal, in Re-\\nflectone “[the contractor’s] REA satisfie[d] all the require-\\nments listed for a [Contract Disputes Act (CDA)] ‘claim’\\naccording to the first sentence of FAR [52.233-1(c)],” and\\nthus we “conclude[d] that the Board ha[d] jurisdiction to\\nreview the [contracting officer]’s denial of [the contractor’s]\\nREA.” Id. at 1578. 1\\n Second, the government argues that “the [March 5]\\ndocument fails to include any language requesting a final\\ndecision.” Gov’t Br. at 12. Although the government agrees\\nthat magic words are not required under our cases, the gov-\\nernment’s position appears to be that a contractor must\\n\\n\\n 1 See also, e.g., Tip Top Constr., Inc. v. Donahoe, 695\\nF.3d 1276, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (treating the contractor’s\\nREA as a claim); Daewoo Eng’g & Constr. Co. v. United\\nStates, 557 F.3d 1332, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (treating the\\ncontractor’s REA as a claim); Propellex Corp. v. Brownlee,\\n342 F.3d 1335, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting the con-\\ntracting officer’s denial of an REA was the relevant final\\ndecision that was appealed to the Board); Oman-Fischbach\\nInt’l (JV) v. Pirie, 276 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (not-\\ning that the contracting officer denied the contractor’s\\nREA, which was treated as a denied claim).\\n\\fHEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 5\\n\\n\\n\\ninclude particular words in its submission in order to con-\\nstitute a request for a contracting officer’s final decision.\\nThis argument is also squarely inconsistent with our\\ncaselaw, which recognizes that “a CDA claim need not be\\nsubmitted in any particular form or use any particular\\nwording,” Maropakis, 609 F.3d at 1327, so long as it has “a\\nclear and unequivocal statement that gives the contracting\\nofficer adequate notice of the basis and amount of the\\nclaim,” id. (quoting Contract Cleaning Maint., Inc. v.\\nUnited States, 811 F.2d 586, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1987)); see, e.g.,\\nK-Con Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. United States, 778 F.3d 1000, 1005\\n(Fed. Cir. 2015); Parsons, 677 F.3d at 1170; Ellett, 93 F.3d\\nat 1542.\\n Under our caselaw, HHL’s March 5 submission consti-\\ntutes a request for a final decision on a claim. In the\\nMarch 5 submission, HHL requested that the contracting\\nofficer provide specific amounts of compensation for each of\\nthe alleged grounds. HHL submitted a sworn statement at-\\ntesting to the truth of the submission, included detailed\\nfactual bases for its alleged losses, and claimed a sum cer-\\ntain based on the losses. This submission bears all of the\\nhallmarks of a request for a final decision on a claim, and\\n“[t]his court is loathe to believe that in this case a reasona-\\nble contractor would submit to the contracting officer a let-\\nter containing a payment request after a dispute had\\narisen solely for the contracting officer’s information and\\nwithout at the very least an implied request that the con-\\ntracting officer make a decision as to entitlement. Any\\nother finding offends logic.” Transamerica Ins. Corp. v.\\nUnited States, 973 F.2d 1572, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1992), over-\\nruled in part by Reflectone, 60 F.3d at 1579 & n.10.\\n Third, the government argues that the March 5 sub-\\nmission is not a request for a final decision because HHL\\nexpressly stated that its submissions did not constitute a\\nrequest for a final decision by the contracting officer on a\\nclaim. The government is correct that before the March 5\\nsubmission, the contractor submitted a document similar\\n\\f6 HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nto the March 5 submission (though unsworn) and indicated\\nan intent to later file a certified formal claim. See, e.g.,\\nJ.A. 290 (“In the event that you decide to treat this [Janu-\\nary 31, 2014 submission] as [an] REA and still reject our\\nrequest for the adjustment of payments, we would then\\nproceed with issuing a certified claim.”); id. (“[W]e are\\nhopeful that you treat this [January 31 submission] as [an]\\nREA and conclude in our favor, which will in turn eliminate\\nthe possibility of proceeding with a certified claim.”). But\\nmost of those communications occurred more than a year\\nbefore HHL’s March 5, 2015, submission and no similar\\ncommunications followed the March 5 submission. 2\\n The March 5 submission purportedly provided the cer-\\ntification that HHL had earlier recognized would be neces-\\nsary to proceed with a claim. The March 5 submission was\\nsworn unlike earlier submissions, and thus had a formality\\nlacking in the earlier submissions. “[C]ertification plays a\\nserious role in the statutory scheme because it triggers a\\ncontractor’s potential liability for a fraudulent claim . . . .\\n[and is] designed to discourage the submission of unwar-\\nranted contractor claims and to encourage settlement.”\\nSkelly & Loy v. United States, 685 F.2d 414, 418 n.11 (Ct.\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 During a nearly year-long communication hiatus\\nby the USACE, HHL did inquire as to the status of its sub-\\nmission and whether it should “submit our claim.” J.A. 86.\\nBut, as is clear from the other communications sent during\\nthat time, HHL was seeking a final decision on its submis-\\nsion (whether it called it a claim, an REA, or something\\nelse). See, e.g., J.A. 109 (asking that the contracting officer\\n“[p]lease let [HHL] know if the review of the case/infor-\\nmation is going to be completed soon and when to expect\\nthe final result” (emphasis added)). To whatever extent\\nthere was uncertainty based on those communications, the\\ncontracting officer could have asked for clarification rather\\nthan issuing a “final determination” in the matter.\\n\\fHEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 7\\n\\n\\n\\nCl. 1982) (citation omitted). It is also important that the\\ncontracting officer treated the denial of HHL’s REA as a\\n“final determination” in the matter. See Transamerica, 973\\nF.2d at 1578 n.2 (“The fact that the Government referred\\nto the operative submission(s) as ‘claims’ was found per-\\nsuasive . . . .” (citing Contract Cleaning, 811 F.2d at 592)).\\nThe contracting officer suggested in an email the need to\\nfile a formal claim, but this occurred after the contractor’s\\nsubmission was complete and the contracting officer had\\nissued a “final determination” in the matter. The contract-\\ning officer could not retroactively turn a qualifying claim\\ndocument into something else.\\n HHL’s March 5 submission constituted a request for a\\nfinal decision by the contracting officer, and the contracting\\nofficer’s denial of that submission was a final decision on a\\nclaim. The Board erred when it concluded that it did not\\nhave jurisdiction over HHL’s appeal.\\n We note that the Board found that HHL’s March 5 sub-\\nmission did not contain a proper certification as required\\nfor a claim of more than $100,000. FAR 52.233-1(c); 41\\nU.S.C. § 7103(b)(1). “A contracting officer is not obligated\\nto render a final decision on a claim of more than $100,000\\nthat is not certified . . . .” 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(3). It is un-\\nclear how the certification was inadequate, but, as the\\nBoard and the government recognize, “[a] defect in the cer-\\ntification of a claim does not deprive a court or an agency\\nboard of jurisdiction over the claim.” Id. “Prior to the entry\\nof a final judgment by a court or a decision by an agency\\nboard, the court or agency board shall require a defective\\ncertification to be corrected.” Id. Here, the government con-\\ncedes that HHL could cure any issues with its certification\\non remand. Therefore, on remand the Board may require\\nHHL to correct any defects in the certification for the\\nMarch 5 submission.\\n REVERSED AND REMANDED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4417508/\", \"author_raw\": \"DYK, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"NEWMAN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"DYK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"WALLACH"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4640255/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD, Appellant v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Appellee\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-17\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD,\n Appellant\n\n v.\n\n UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,\n Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2018-2206\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Ap-\npeals in No. 61234, Administrative Judge Donald Evan\nKinner, Administrative Judge J. Reid Prouty, Administra-\ntive Judge Richard Shackleford.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: July 17, 2019\n ______________________\n\n JOSEPH ALOYSIUS HENNESSEY, The Law Office of Jo-\nseph Hennessey, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD, argued for appel-\nlant.\n\n JESSICA R. TOPLIN, Commercial Litigation Branch,\nCivil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-\nington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by\nJOSEPH H. HUNT, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.,\nPATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.\n ______________________\n\f2 HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS\n\n\n\n\n Before NEWMAN, DYK, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.\nDYK, Circuit Judge.\n Hejran Hejrat Co. Ltd. (“HHL”) appeals from a decision\nby the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”)\ndismissing HHL’s case for lack of jurisdiction. Because we\nconclude that there was a request for a final decision by a\ncontracting officer and a final decision entered by the con-\ntracting officer, we reverse and remand for further proceed-\nings.\n BACKGROUND\n This appeal arises from HHL’s 2011 contract with the\nUnited States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) to pro-\nvide transportation services in Afghanistan. After the con-\ntract expired, HHL requested additional compensation\nfrom the USACE based on alleged violations of the con-\ntract: suspension of work, changes to the contract require-\nments, and termination of the original contract. After\nvarious preliminary submissions, on March 5, 2015, HHL\nsubmitted a document entitled “Request for Equitable Ad-\njustment (REA)” with a sworn statement by HHL’s Deputy\nManaging Director having “full management [authority]\nto . . . close out . . . the contract.” J.A. 70. In that submis-\nsion, HHL requested that the submission be “treated as\na[n] REA,” J.A. 74, and requested $4,137,964 in compensa-\ntion. The contracting officer denied HHL’s request on\nMarch 26, 2017, in what the contracting officer character-\nized as the “Government’s final determination in this mat-\nter.” J.A. 116. HHL appealed the decision, but the Board\nconcluded that it did not have jurisdiction because “[a]t no\npoint, in six years of communication with the [USACE], has\nHHL requested a contracting officer’s final decision.”\nJ.A. 4.\n HHL appealed to our court. We have jurisdiction pur-\nsuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10). We review the Board’s\n\fHEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 3\n\n\n\ndetermination of its jurisdiction de novo. Reflectone, Inc. v.\nDalton, 60 F.3d 1572, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).\n DISCUSSION\n In order for the Board to have jurisdiction, there must\nbe a final decision by a contracting officer on a claim. Par-\nsons Glob. Servs. v. McHugh, 677 F.3d 1166, 1170 (Fed. Cir.\n2012) (citing 41 U.S.C. § 7103). The issue on appeal is\nwhether HHL requested a contracting officer’s final deci-\nsion on a claim, such that the officer’s denial constituted a\nfinal decision that supported the Board’s jurisdiction.\n The statute provides that “[e]ach claim by a contractor\nagainst the Federal Government relating to a contract\nshall be submitted to the contracting officer for a decision.”\n41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(1). Thus, in order to constitute a claim\na contractor must request a final decision by a contracting\nofficer. M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609\nF.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing James M. Ellet\nConst. Co., v. United States, 93 F.3d 1537, 1543 (Fed. Cir.\n1996)) (“The CDA . . . requires that a claim indicate to the\ncontracting officer that the contractor is requesting a final\ndecision.”).\n “[W]e evaluate whether a particular request for pay-\nment amounts to a claim based on the [Federal Acquisition\nRegulations (FARs),] . . . the language of the contract in\ndispute, and the facts of each case.” Parsons, 677 F.3d at\n1170. Under the relevant FAR, a claim is defined as “a writ-\nten demand or written assertion by one of the contracting\nparties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money\nin sum certain.” FAR 52.233-1(c) (2002).\n HHL contends that its March 5, 2015, submission con-\nstituted a claim within the meaning of the CDA. There is\nno dispute that HHL’s March 5 submission was under the\nFAR a “written demand . . . seeking, as a matter of right,\nthe payment of money in sum certain.” Id. Indeed, the\nBoard found that in its submissions “HHL adequately\n\f4 HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS\n\n\n\n\ndescribed five grounds why it is owed more money, and the\nsum certain being requested for each.” J.A. 4.\n On appeal the government makes three arguments as\nto why HHL’s submission did not constitute a request for a\nfinal decision. First, the government’s “[f]oremost” argu-\nment is that “HHL’s March 5, 2015, submission is styled as\na[n] REA, not as a claim. HHL also expressly requested\nthat the document be ‘treated as an REA.’” Gov’t Br. at 12\n(internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). The govern-\nment’s argument that an REA cannot constitute a claim is\ndirectly contrary to this court’s en banc decision in Reflec-\ntone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc),\nand subsequent cases. Just as in the current appeal, in Re-\nflectone “[the contractor’s] REA satisfie[d] all the require-\nments listed for a [Contract Disputes Act (CDA)] ‘claim’\naccording to the first sentence of FAR [52.233-1(c)],” and\nthus we “conclude[d] that the Board ha[d] jurisdiction to\nreview the [contracting officer]’s denial of [the contractor’s]\nREA.” Id. at 1578. 1\n Second, the government argues that “the [March 5]\ndocument fails to include any language requesting a final\ndecision.” Gov’t Br. at 12. Although the government agrees\nthat magic words are not required under our cases, the gov-\nernment’s position appears to be that a contractor must\n\n\n 1 See also, e.g., Tip Top Constr., Inc. v. Donahoe, 695\nF.3d 1276, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (treating the contractor’s\nREA as a claim); Daewoo Eng’g & Constr. Co. v. United\nStates, 557 F.3d 1332, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (treating the\ncontractor’s REA as a claim); Propellex Corp. v. Brownlee,\n342 F.3d 1335, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting the con-\ntracting officer’s denial of an REA was the relevant final\ndecision that was appealed to the Board); Oman-Fischbach\nInt’l (JV) v. Pirie, 276 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (not-\ning that the contracting officer denied the contractor’s\nREA, which was treated as a denied claim).\n\fHEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 5\n\n\n\ninclude particular words in its submission in order to con-\nstitute a request for a contracting officer’s final decision.\nThis argument is also squarely inconsistent with our\ncaselaw, which recognizes that “a CDA claim need not be\nsubmitted in any particular form or use any particular\nwording,” Maropakis, 609 F.3d at 1327, so long as it has “a\nclear and unequivocal statement that gives the contracting\nofficer adequate notice of the basis and amount of the\nclaim,” id. (quoting Contract Cleaning Maint., Inc. v.\nUnited States, 811 F.2d 586, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1987)); see, e.g.,\nK-Con Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. United States, 778 F.3d 1000, 1005\n(Fed. Cir. 2015); Parsons, 677 F.3d at 1170; Ellett, 93 F.3d\nat 1542.\n Under our caselaw, HHL’s March 5 submission consti-\ntutes a request for a final decision on a claim. In the\nMarch 5 submission, HHL requested that the contracting\nofficer provide specific amounts of compensation for each of\nthe alleged grounds. HHL submitted a sworn statement at-\ntesting to the truth of the submission, included detailed\nfactual bases for its alleged losses, and claimed a sum cer-\ntain based on the losses. This submission bears all of the\nhallmarks of a request for a final decision on a claim, and\n“[t]his court is loathe to believe that in this case a reasona-\nble contractor would submit to the contracting officer a let-\nter containing a payment request after a dispute had\narisen solely for the contracting officer’s information and\nwithout at the very least an implied request that the con-\ntracting officer make a decision as to entitlement. Any\nother finding offends logic.” Transamerica Ins. Corp. v.\nUnited States, 973 F.2d 1572, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1992), over-\nruled in part by Reflectone, 60 F.3d at 1579 & n.10.\n Third, the government argues that the March 5 sub-\nmission is not a request for a final decision because HHL\nexpressly stated that its submissions did not constitute a\nrequest for a final decision by the contracting officer on a\nclaim. The government is correct that before the March 5\nsubmission, the contractor submitted a document similar\n\f6 HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS\n\n\n\n\nto the March 5 submission (though unsworn) and indicated\nan intent to later file a certified formal claim. See, e.g.,\nJ.A. 290 (“In the event that you decide to treat this [Janu-\nary 31, 2014 submission] as [an] REA and still reject our\nrequest for the adjustment of payments, we would then\nproceed with issuing a certified claim.”); id. (“[W]e are\nhopeful that you treat this [January 31 submission] as [an]\nREA and conclude in our favor, which will in turn eliminate\nthe possibility of proceeding with a certified claim.”). But\nmost of those communications occurred more than a year\nbefore HHL’s March 5, 2015, submission and no similar\ncommunications followed the March 5 submission. 2\n The March 5 submission purportedly provided the cer-\ntification that HHL had earlier recognized would be neces-\nsary to proceed with a claim. The March 5 submission was\nsworn unlike earlier submissions, and thus had a formality\nlacking in the earlier submissions. “[C]ertification plays a\nserious role in the statutory scheme because it triggers a\ncontractor’s potential liability for a fraudulent claim . . . .\n[and is] designed to discourage the submission of unwar-\nranted contractor claims and to encourage settlement.”\nSkelly & Loy v. United States, 685 F.2d 414, 418 n.11 (Ct.\n\n\n\n 2 During a nearly year-long communication hiatus\nby the USACE, HHL did inquire as to the status of its sub-\nmission and whether it should “submit our claim.” J.A. 86.\nBut, as is clear from the other communications sent during\nthat time, HHL was seeking a final decision on its submis-\nsion (whether it called it a claim, an REA, or something\nelse). See, e.g., J.A. 109 (asking that the contracting officer\n“[p]lease let [HHL] know if the review of the case/infor-\nmation is going to be completed soon and when to expect\nthe final result” (emphasis added)). To whatever extent\nthere was uncertainty based on those communications, the\ncontracting officer could have asked for clarification rather\nthan issuing a “final determination” in the matter.\n\fHEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 7\n\n\n\nCl. 1982) (citation omitted). It is also important that the\ncontracting officer treated the denial of HHL’s REA as a\n“final determination” in the matter. See Transamerica, 973\nF.2d at 1578 n.2 (“The fact that the Government referred\nto the operative submission(s) as ‘claims’ was found per-\nsuasive . . . .” (citing Contract Cleaning, 811 F.2d at 592)).\nThe contracting officer suggested in an email the need to\nfile a formal claim, but this occurred after the contractor’s\nsubmission was complete and the contracting officer had\nissued a “final determination” in the matter. The contract-\ning officer could not retroactively turn a qualifying claim\ndocument into something else.\n HHL’s March 5 submission constituted a request for a\nfinal decision by the contracting officer, and the contracting\nofficer’s denial of that submission was a final decision on a\nclaim. The Board erred when it concluded that it did not\nhave jurisdiction over HHL’s appeal.\n We note that the Board found that HHL’s March 5 sub-\nmission did not contain a proper certification as required\nfor a claim of more than $100,000. FAR 52.233-1(c); 41\nU.S.C. § 7103(b)(1). “A contracting officer is not obligated\nto render a final decision on a claim of more than $100,000\nthat is not certified . . . .” 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(3). It is un-\nclear how the certification was inadequate, but, as the\nBoard and the government recognize, “[a] defect in the cer-\ntification of a claim does not deprive a court or an agency\nboard of jurisdiction over the claim.” Id. “Prior to the entry\nof a final judgment by a court or a decision by an agency\nboard, the court or agency board shall require a defective\ncertification to be corrected.” Id. Here, the government con-\ncedes that HHL could cure any issues with its certification\non remand. Therefore, on remand the Board may require\nHHL to correct any defects in the certification for the\nMarch 5 submission.\n REVERSED AND REMANDED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD, Appellant v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Appellee\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-17\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-2206\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Ap-\\npeals in No. 61234, Administrative Judge Donald Evan\\nKinner, Administrative Judge J. Reid Prouty, Administra-\\ntive Judge Richard Shackleford.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 17, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n JOSEPH ALOYSIUS HENNESSEY, The Law Office of Jo-\\nseph Hennessey, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD, argued for appel-\\nlant.\\n\\n JESSICA R. TOPLIN, Commercial Litigation Branch,\\nCivil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-\\nington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by\\nJOSEPH H. HUNT, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.,\\nPATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.\\n ______________________\\n\\f2 HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Before NEWMAN, DYK, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.\\nDYK, Circuit Judge.\\n Hejran Hejrat Co. Ltd. (“HHL”) appeals from a decision\\nby the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”)\\ndismissing HHL’s case for lack of jurisdiction. Because we\\nconclude that there was a request for a final decision by a\\ncontracting officer and a final decision entered by the con-\\ntracting officer, we reverse and remand for further proceed-\\nings.\\n BACKGROUND\\n This appeal arises from HHL’s 2011 contract with the\\nUnited States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) to pro-\\nvide transportation services in Afghanistan. After the con-\\ntract expired, HHL requested additional compensation\\nfrom the USACE based on alleged violations of the con-\\ntract: suspension of work, changes to the contract require-\\nments, and termination of the original contract. After\\nvarious preliminary submissions, on March 5, 2015, HHL\\nsubmitted a document entitled “Request for Equitable Ad-\\njustment (REA)” with a sworn statement by HHL’s Deputy\\nManaging Director having “full management [authority]\\nto . . . close out . . . the contract.” J.A. 70. In that submis-\\nsion, HHL requested that the submission be “treated as\\na[n] REA,” J.A. 74, and requested $4,137,964 in compensa-\\ntion. The contracting officer denied HHL’s request on\\nMarch 26, 2017, in what the contracting officer character-\\nized as the “Government’s final determination in this mat-\\nter.” J.A. 116. HHL appealed the decision, but the Board\\nconcluded that it did not have jurisdiction because “[a]t no\\npoint, in six years of communication with the [USACE], has\\nHHL requested a contracting officer’s final decision.”\\nJ.A. 4.\\n HHL appealed to our court. We have jurisdiction pur-\\nsuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10). We review the Board’s\\n\\fHEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 3\\n\\n\\n\\ndetermination of its jurisdiction de novo. Reflectone, Inc. v.\\nDalton, 60 F.3d 1572, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).\\n DISCUSSION\\n In order for the Board to have jurisdiction, there must\\nbe a final decision by a contracting officer on a claim. Par-\\nsons Glob. Servs. v. McHugh, 677 F.3d 1166, 1170 (Fed. Cir.\\n2012) (citing 41 U.S.C. § 7103). The issue on appeal is\\nwhether HHL requested a contracting officer’s final deci-\\nsion on a claim, such that the officer’s denial constituted a\\nfinal decision that supported the Board’s jurisdiction.\\n The statute provides that “[e]ach claim by a contractor\\nagainst the Federal Government relating to a contract\\nshall be submitted to the contracting officer for a decision.”\\n41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(1). Thus, in order to constitute a claim\\na contractor must request a final decision by a contracting\\nofficer. M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609\\nF.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing James M. Ellet\\nConst. Co., v. United States, 93 F.3d 1537, 1543 (Fed. Cir.\\n1996)) (“The CDA . . . requires that a claim indicate to the\\ncontracting officer that the contractor is requesting a final\\ndecision.”).\\n “[W]e evaluate whether a particular request for pay-\\nment amounts to a claim based on the [Federal Acquisition\\nRegulations (FARs),] . . . the language of the contract in\\ndispute, and the facts of each case.” Parsons, 677 F.3d at\\n1170. Under the relevant FAR, a claim is defined as “a writ-\\nten demand or written assertion by one of the contracting\\nparties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money\\nin sum certain.” FAR 52.233-1(c) (2002).\\n HHL contends that its March 5, 2015, submission con-\\nstituted a claim within the meaning of the CDA. There is\\nno dispute that HHL’s March 5 submission was under the\\nFAR a “written demand . . . seeking, as a matter of right,\\nthe payment of money in sum certain.” Id. Indeed, the\\nBoard found that in its submissions “HHL adequately\\n\\f4 HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ndescribed five grounds why it is owed more money, and the\\nsum certain being requested for each.” J.A. 4.\\n On appeal the government makes three arguments as\\nto why HHL’s submission did not constitute a request for a\\nfinal decision. First, the government’s “[f]oremost” argu-\\nment is that “HHL’s March 5, 2015, submission is styled as\\na[n] REA, not as a claim. HHL also expressly requested\\nthat the document be ‘treated as an REA.’” Gov’t Br. at 12\\n(internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). The govern-\\nment’s argument that an REA cannot constitute a claim is\\ndirectly contrary to this court’s en banc decision in Reflec-\\ntone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc),\\nand subsequent cases. Just as in the current appeal, in Re-\\nflectone “[the contractor’s] REA satisfie[d] all the require-\\nments listed for a [Contract Disputes Act (CDA)] ‘claim’\\naccording to the first sentence of FAR [52.233-1(c)],” and\\nthus we “conclude[d] that the Board ha[d] jurisdiction to\\nreview the [contracting officer]’s denial of [the contractor’s]\\nREA.” Id. at 1578. 1\\n Second, the government argues that “the [March 5]\\ndocument fails to include any language requesting a final\\ndecision.” Gov’t Br. at 12. Although the government agrees\\nthat magic words are not required under our cases, the gov-\\nernment’s position appears to be that a contractor must\\n\\n\\n 1 See also, e.g., Tip Top Constr., Inc. v. Donahoe, 695\\nF.3d 1276, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (treating the contractor’s\\nREA as a claim); Daewoo Eng’g & Constr. Co. v. United\\nStates, 557 F.3d 1332, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (treating the\\ncontractor’s REA as a claim); Propellex Corp. v. Brownlee,\\n342 F.3d 1335, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting the con-\\ntracting officer’s denial of an REA was the relevant final\\ndecision that was appealed to the Board); Oman-Fischbach\\nInt’l (JV) v. Pirie, 276 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (not-\\ning that the contracting officer denied the contractor’s\\nREA, which was treated as a denied claim).\\n\\fHEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 5\\n\\n\\n\\ninclude particular words in its submission in order to con-\\nstitute a request for a contracting officer’s final decision.\\nThis argument is also squarely inconsistent with our\\ncaselaw, which recognizes that “a CDA claim need not be\\nsubmitted in any particular form or use any particular\\nwording,” Maropakis, 609 F.3d at 1327, so long as it has “a\\nclear and unequivocal statement that gives the contracting\\nofficer adequate notice of the basis and amount of the\\nclaim,” id. (quoting Contract Cleaning Maint., Inc. v.\\nUnited States, 811 F.2d 586, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1987)); see, e.g.,\\nK-Con Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. United States, 778 F.3d 1000, 1005\\n(Fed. Cir. 2015); Parsons, 677 F.3d at 1170; Ellett, 93 F.3d\\nat 1542.\\n Under our caselaw, HHL’s March 5 submission consti-\\ntutes a request for a final decision on a claim. In the\\nMarch 5 submission, HHL requested that the contracting\\nofficer provide specific amounts of compensation for each of\\nthe alleged grounds. HHL submitted a sworn statement at-\\ntesting to the truth of the submission, included detailed\\nfactual bases for its alleged losses, and claimed a sum cer-\\ntain based on the losses. This submission bears all of the\\nhallmarks of a request for a final decision on a claim, and\\n“[t]his court is loathe to believe that in this case a reasona-\\nble contractor would submit to the contracting officer a let-\\nter containing a payment request after a dispute had\\narisen solely for the contracting officer’s information and\\nwithout at the very least an implied request that the con-\\ntracting officer make a decision as to entitlement. Any\\nother finding offends logic.” Transamerica Ins. Corp. v.\\nUnited States, 973 F.2d 1572, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1992), over-\\nruled in part by Reflectone, 60 F.3d at 1579 & n.10.\\n Third, the government argues that the March 5 sub-\\nmission is not a request for a final decision because HHL\\nexpressly stated that its submissions did not constitute a\\nrequest for a final decision by the contracting officer on a\\nclaim. The government is correct that before the March 5\\nsubmission, the contractor submitted a document similar\\n\\f6 HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nto the March 5 submission (though unsworn) and indicated\\nan intent to later file a certified formal claim. See, e.g.,\\nJ.A. 290 (“In the event that you decide to treat this [Janu-\\nary 31, 2014 submission] as [an] REA and still reject our\\nrequest for the adjustment of payments, we would then\\nproceed with issuing a certified claim.”); id. (“[W]e are\\nhopeful that you treat this [January 31 submission] as [an]\\nREA and conclude in our favor, which will in turn eliminate\\nthe possibility of proceeding with a certified claim.”). But\\nmost of those communications occurred more than a year\\nbefore HHL’s March 5, 2015, submission and no similar\\ncommunications followed the March 5 submission. 2\\n The March 5 submission purportedly provided the cer-\\ntification that HHL had earlier recognized would be neces-\\nsary to proceed with a claim. The March 5 submission was\\nsworn unlike earlier submissions, and thus had a formality\\nlacking in the earlier submissions. “[C]ertification plays a\\nserious role in the statutory scheme because it triggers a\\ncontractor’s potential liability for a fraudulent claim . . . .\\n[and is] designed to discourage the submission of unwar-\\nranted contractor claims and to encourage settlement.”\\nSkelly & Loy v. United States, 685 F.2d 414, 418 n.11 (Ct.\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 During a nearly year-long communication hiatus\\nby the USACE, HHL did inquire as to the status of its sub-\\nmission and whether it should “submit our claim.” J.A. 86.\\nBut, as is clear from the other communications sent during\\nthat time, HHL was seeking a final decision on its submis-\\nsion (whether it called it a claim, an REA, or something\\nelse). See, e.g., J.A. 109 (asking that the contracting officer\\n“[p]lease let [HHL] know if the review of the case/infor-\\nmation is going to be completed soon and when to expect\\nthe final result” (emphasis added)). To whatever extent\\nthere was uncertainty based on those communications, the\\ncontracting officer could have asked for clarification rather\\nthan issuing a “final determination” in the matter.\\n\\fHEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 7\\n\\n\\n\\nCl. 1982) (citation omitted). It is also important that the\\ncontracting officer treated the denial of HHL’s REA as a\\n“final determination” in the matter. See Transamerica, 973\\nF.2d at 1578 n.2 (“The fact that the Government referred\\nto the operative submission(s) as ‘claims’ was found per-\\nsuasive . . . .” (citing Contract Cleaning, 811 F.2d at 592)).\\nThe contracting officer suggested in an email the need to\\nfile a formal claim, but this occurred after the contractor’s\\nsubmission was complete and the contracting officer had\\nissued a “final determination” in the matter. The contract-\\ning officer could not retroactively turn a qualifying claim\\ndocument into something else.\\n HHL’s March 5 submission constituted a request for a\\nfinal decision by the contracting officer, and the contracting\\nofficer’s denial of that submission was a final decision on a\\nclaim. The Board erred when it concluded that it did not\\nhave jurisdiction over HHL’s appeal.\\n We note that the Board found that HHL’s March 5 sub-\\nmission did not contain a proper certification as required\\nfor a claim of more than $100,000. FAR 52.233-1(c); 41\\nU.S.C. § 7103(b)(1). “A contracting officer is not obligated\\nto render a final decision on a claim of more than $100,000\\nthat is not certified . . . .” 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(3). It is un-\\nclear how the certification was inadequate, but, as the\\nBoard and the government recognize, “[a] defect in the cer-\\ntification of a claim does not deprive a court or an agency\\nboard of jurisdiction over the claim.” Id. “Prior to the entry\\nof a final judgment by a court or a decision by an agency\\nboard, the court or agency board shall require a defective\\ncertification to be corrected.” Id. Here, the government con-\\ncedes that HHL could cure any issues with its certification\\non remand. Therefore, on remand the Board may require\\nHHL to correct any defects in the certification for the\\nMarch 5 submission.\\n REVERSED AND REMANDED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3499,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4641256,"string":"4,641,256"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Robert Wesley SMITH, Petitioner v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Smith v. Gen. Servs. Admin."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-07-19"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"2018-1604"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Wallach, Taranto, Stoll\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"STOLL, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n ROBERT WESLEY SMITH,\\n Petitioner\\n\\n v.\\n\\n GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,\\n Respondent\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1604\\n ______________________\\n\\n Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection\\nBoard in No. AT-0752-17-0470-I-1.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 19, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n JOHN THOMAS HARRINGTON, The Employment Law\\nGroup, PC, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. Also\\nrepresented by ROBERT SCOTT OSWALD.\\n\\n JESSICA R. TOPLIN, Commercial Litigation Branch,\\nCivil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-\\nington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by\\nLISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.,\\nJOSEPH H. HUNT.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before WALLACH, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f2 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nSTOLL, Circuit Judge.\\n Mr. Robert Smith worked at the General Services Ad-\\nministration for nearly 30 years before GSA removed him.\\nMr. Smith appealed that decision to the Merit Systems\\nProtection Board, asserting that the agency failed to show\\nhis actions warranted removal and that the agency had re-\\ntaliated against him for his repeated disclosure of gross\\nmismanagement and waste.\\n The Board agreed that Mr. Smith was a whistleblower\\nand that his protected disclosures contributed to the\\nagency’s decision to remove him. The Board nevertheless\\naffirmed the agency’s decision. Without addressing evi-\\ndence relevant to the agency’s motive to retaliate or its\\ntreatment of other similarly situated non-whistleblowers—\\nlegal error in itself—the Board ruled that because the\\nagency had introduced strong evidence of misconduct, re-\\nmoval was justified. In doing so, the Board conflated two\\ndistinct inquiries: whether the agency’s penalty was rea-\\nsonable and whether the agency would have imposed that\\nsame penalty absent Mr. Smith’s protected whistleblowing.\\nThis was error. The Board additionally erred in sustaining\\ncertain charges. Accordingly, we reverse those charges, af-\\nfirm others, and vacate the Board’s decision. We remand\\nfor it to address the merits of Mr. Smith’s whistleblower\\ndefense, as well as the agency’s chosen penalty, under the\\nproper legal standards.\\n BACKGROUND\\n Mr. Smith began working at GSA in 1989. Over the\\ncourse of his career, he worked in various realty and finan-\\ncial management positions, eventually becoming a Senior\\nFinancial Advisor. For much of his career, Mr. Smith re-\\nceived positive performance evaluations and faced no dis-\\ncipline. In each of his fiscal year evaluations from 2006\\nthrough 2015, Mr. Smith received either “highly” or “fully\\nsuccessful” ratings, and in 2011, Mr. Smith received a Na-\\ntional Achievement Award for Asset Management.\\n\\fSMITH v. GSA 3\\n\\n\\n\\n Over time, Mr. Smith became concerned that GSA was\\nunder-collecting rent and ineffectively managing its assets.\\nHe began sending emails to the agency’s regional leader-\\nship describing these issues and advocating change. See,\\ne.g., J.A. 818–19 (asserting region was “$47 million behind”\\nin billing in April 2012), 822–956 (providing 134 pages de-\\ntailing management failures in March 2014), 978–1039 (ar-\\nguing agency should “[r]eview the consistency in which all\\nregions have applied . . . national policies and procedures”\\nin July 2014), 1943–44 (describing “[t]he Road to Ineffec-\\ntive Management” in November 2014).\\n As Mr. Smith continued to send these emails, his im-\\nmediate supervisors began restricting his ability to corre-\\nspond directly with upper management. In late 2014, his\\nsecond-line supervisor informed him that sending such\\n“message[s] to the Regional Commissioner was inappropri-\\nate.” J.A. 1940. And his then first-line supervisor wrote\\nthat because “the tone of many of your communications\\n. . . is inappropriate” and “concerns have been raised re-\\ngarding the accuracy of [your] information”:\\n [A]ny communication that you wish to transmit\\n (verbally or electronically) to managers outside of\\n the [group] must be approved by me before doing so.\\n Please note that failure to comply with these in-\\n structions may result in disciplinary action.\\nJ.A. 961 (first emphasis added); see also J.A. 1948 (reiter-\\nating “[a]ny communication that you wish to transmit (ver-\\nbally or electronically) to managers outside of [standard\\nmanagement channels] must be approved by me before do-\\ning so”).\\n In 2015, GSA reorganized, and Mr. Smith received a\\nnew first-line supervisor and a revised position description.\\nMr. Smith understood his new position description to elim-\\ninate any communication restriction. Though his new su-\\npervisor reiterated that “your new Position Description\\ndoes not supersede the communication instructions you\\n\\f4 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nreceived via e-mail on December 11 and 12, 2014 from\\n[your previous supervisor],” J.A. 1932–33, Mr. Smith nev-\\nertheless sent another email to upper management in De-\\ncember 2015. The 87-page document, titled “Performance\\nDiagnostic: A Guide to Move the Region to Performance\\nSustainability,” identified areas of mismanagement and of-\\nfered strategies to recapture lost rents and reduce ineffi-\\nciencies. J.A. 1848–1930. Additional emails followed in\\nJanuary and February 2016.\\n In February 2016, Mr. Roman Augustus became\\nMr. Smith’s immediate supervisor. In March, he again in-\\nstructed Mr. Smith to “please communicate and coordinate\\nwith me via email prior to generating, compiling and for-\\nwarding any reports, direction, data requests or analytical\\nnarratives to the region.” J.A. 513. Shortly thereafter,\\nMr. Augustus proposed that Mr. Smith be suspended for\\nhis failure to follow his previous supervisors’ similar com-\\nmunication instructions. The agency imposed that suspen-\\nsion in June 2016.\\n Over the spring and summer of 2016, Mr. Smith’s and\\nMr. Augustus’s relationship became increasingly conten-\\ntious. Mr. Augustus complained that Mr. Smith failed to\\ntimely forward documents, and Mr. Smith responded by\\nemail “[c]all me a liar—or just confront me with any mild\\ninfraction of your rules—I can handle it.” J.A. 1840. Dur-\\ning meetings, Mr. Smith challenged Mr. Augustus’s au-\\nthority, stating, “[y]ou are my administrative supervisor,”\\n“[y]ou cannot self-direct me,” “[d]on’t put regulations on\\nme,” J.A. 371–72, “[y]ou’re not supposed to be giving me\\ntasks,” and “I am next to you, not under you,” J.A. 378–79.\\nIn a letter, Mr. Smith complained to human resources that\\nMr. Augustus’s management approach amounted to “dic-\\ntates or child-like amonmondisshments [sic].” J.A. 1614.\\nAnd in another document, Mr. Smith urged agency officials\\nthat “moving forward, [Mr. Augustus] is prohibited from\\ninterfering with the duties, obligations, and authorities as\\npromulgated in the [2015 revised position description].”\\n\\fSMITH v. GSA 5\\n\\n\\n\\nJ.A. 4. Mr. Augustus felt that on each of these five occa-\\nsions, Mr. Smith had been disrespectful.\\n Mr. Augustus responded by informing Mr. Smith that\\n“such conduct will not be tolerated and may result in disci-\\nplinary action.” J.A. 1840. He reprimanded Mr. Smith for\\nfailing to follow instructions regarding how and when tasks\\nshould be completed. And he issued a record of infraction,\\naccusing Mr. Smith of violating GSA’s information technol-\\nogy (“IT”) policy by leaving his computer access card (“PIV”\\ncard) unattended in his laptop in his cubicle. Mr. Augustus\\ndid not acknowledge that Mr. Smith, a quadriplegic, had\\nnever removed the PIV card from his laptop because he was\\nphysically unable to do so.\\n On September 14, 2016, Mr. Augustus proposed remov-\\ning Mr. Smith from his position. Mr. Augustus charged\\nMr. Smith with failure to comply with IT policy, failure to\\nfollow supervisory instructions, and disrespectful conduct\\ntowards a supervisor. 1 The deciding official determined\\nthat “the reasons for [the] proposed removal fully support\\nand justify” removal, and the agency removed Mr. Smith\\nfrom his position. J.A. 1664.\\n II\\n Mr. Smith appealed to the Board, arguing that the\\ncharged conduct did not merit discipline and that the\\nagency was retaliating against him for his whistleblowing.\\nSee 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511–15; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3(a)(1). The Ad-\\nministrative Judge (“AJ”) agreed that Mr. Smith was a\\nwhistleblower because of his December 2015 “Performance\\nDiagnostic” disclosure. The AJ further found that, based\\non the timing, a reasonable person could conclude that\\nMr. Smith’s disclosure contributed to the agency’s decision\\nto remove Mr. Smith. Nevertheless, the AJ affirmed GSA’s\\n\\n\\n 1 A fourth charge, absence without leave, was not\\nsustained by the Board and is not at issue on appeal.\\n\\f6 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ndecision, concluding that the government had shown by\\nclear and convincing evidence that it would have removed\\nMr. Smith regardless of his whistleblowing.\\n The AJ began by considering the charges. The agency\\nsupported the charge of failure to comply with IT policy\\nwith a single specification that described Mr. Smith’s fail-\\nure to remove his PIV card from his laptop. The AJ found\\nthat Mr. Smith had notice of the IT policy and did not dis-\\npute that he failed to remove his PIV card from his laptop\\nas required by that policy. Though it was undisputed that\\nMr. Smith could not physically remove his PIV card from\\nhis laptop, the AJ further found that Mr. Smith was not\\nprotected by the IT policy’s exception for persons with dis-\\nabilities.\\n The AJ also sustained the charge of failure to comply\\nwith supervisory instructions. GSA identified three inci-\\ndents supporting the charge: that Mr. Smith had sent a\\nshort email on a weekend despite direction by Mr. Augus-\\ntus not to work on weekends, and that Mr. Smith had twice\\nfailed to timely forward documents to Mr. Augustus in the\\nmanner instructed. The AJ found that in all three in-\\nstances, Mr. Smith admitted both that he had received in-\\nstructions from Mr. Augustus and that he had not followed\\nthem.\\n Similarly, the AJ sustained the charge of disrespectful\\nconduct, which relied on the five previously discussed\\nstatements made by Mr. Smith to Mr. Augustus.\\nMr. Smith admitted to making each of the statements, and\\nthe AJ found that all five were “rude, discourteous, defiant,\\nand/or challenging or undermining the authority of his su-\\npervisor, Roman Augustus.” J.A. 4.\\n The AJ found an “obvious nexus” between the sus-\\ntained charges and the efficiency of the service. J.A. 13.\\nAnd though he had not sustained a fourth charge, the AJ\\nnevertheless found that given the seriousness of the sus-\\ntained charges and Mr. Smith’s prior suspension on similar\\n\\fSMITH v. GSA 7\\n\\n\\n\\ngrounds, the agency’s decision to remove Mr. Smith was\\nnot unreasonable.\\n The AJ acknowledged that even though he had found\\nthe penalty reasonable, the agency’s decision could not be\\nupheld if Mr. Smith proved his affirmative defense of whis-\\ntleblower reprisal. The AJ found that Mr. Smith had met\\nhis burden of showing both that he was a whistleblower\\nand that his statutorily protected disclosures contributed\\nto GSA’s decision to remove him. But in two sentences, the\\nAJ ruled that:\\n [B]ased on the strength of the agency’s evi-\\n dence . . . it proved by clear and convincing evi-\\n dence that it would have taken the same personnel\\n action (removal) absent any disclosure. Indeed, I\\n find that the defiantly disrespectful misconduct de-\\n scribed . . . alone would have justified his removal,\\n especially in light of his previous suspension for\\n similar misconduct.\\nJ.A. 21–22.\\n The AJ’s decision became the final decision of the\\nBoard, see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113, and Mr. Smith timely\\nsought review in this court, see 5 U.S.C. § 7703. We have\\njurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).\\n DISCUSSION\\n By statute, we must “hold unlawful and set aside” ac-\\ntions, findings, or conclusions of the Board if they are\\n(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or other-\\nwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without pro-\\ncedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been\\nfollowed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.\\n5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); see Cobert v. Miller, 800 F.3d 1340,\\n1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We review the Board’s legal con-\\nclusions de novo and its fact findings for substantial evi-\\ndence. See Campbell v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 27 F.3d 1560,\\n1564 (Fed. Cir. 1994).\\n\\f8 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n I\\n We first address the Board’s treatment of Mr. Smith’s\\nwhistleblower defense. Because the Board applied an in-\\ncorrect legal standard and ignored relevant evidence, we\\nvacate its decision.\\n A\\n Statute prohibits an agency from penalizing its em-\\nployees for whistleblowing. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). An\\nemployee who believes he has been subjected to illegal re-\\ntaliation must prove by a preponderance of the evidence\\nthat he made a protected disclosure that contributed to the\\nagency’s action against him. See Whitmore v. Dep’t of La-\\nbor, 680 F.3d 1353, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “If the employee\\nestablishes this prima facie case of reprisal for whistle-\\nblowing, the burden of persuasion shifts to the agency to\\nshow by clear and convincing evidence that it would have\\ntaken ‘the same personnel action in the absence of such dis-\\nclosure.’” Id. at 1364 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)). If the\\nagency does not show by clear and convincing evidence that\\nit would have taken the same action absent the whistle-\\nblowing, the agency’s penalty cannot be affirmed. See Siler\\nv. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 908 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2018).\\nIn determining whether the agency has carried its burden,\\nwe have instructed the Board to consider three nonexclu-\\nsive factors:\\n [1] the strength of the agency’s evidence in support\\n of its personnel action; [2] the existence and\\n strength of any motive to retaliate on the part of\\n the agency officials who were involved in the deci-\\n sion; and [3] any evidence that the agency takes\\n similar actions against employees who are not\\n whistleblowers but who are otherwise similarly sit-\\n uated.\\nCarr v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 185 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir.\\n1999).\\n\\fSMITH v. GSA 9\\n\\n\\n\\n B\\n Here, the Board’s discussion of the Carr factors is all of\\ntwo sentences:\\n I further find based on the strength of the agency’s\\n evidence that it proved by clear and convincing ev-\\n idence that it would have taken the same personnel\\n action (removal) absent any disclosure. Indeed, I\\n find that the defiantly disrespectful misconduct de-\\n scribed . . . alone would have justified his removal,\\n especially in light of his previous suspension for\\n similar misconduct.\\nJ.A. 21–22. While the first sentence states the correct legal\\nstandard, the Board did not provide any analysis of the\\nCarr factors. Moreover, the second sentence applies an in-\\ncorrect standard, averring that Mr. Smith’s misconduct\\nalone justified the agency’s action. Contrary to the Board’s\\nstatement, the merits of a whistleblower defense do not\\nturn on the strength of the agency’s evidence alone or on\\nwhether the misconduct justified removal. Those points\\nspeak to whether the agency met its burden to prove that\\nmisconduct occurred, discipline is warranted, and the cho-\\nsen penalty is reasonable, factors the agency must show by\\npreponderant evidence in every appeal from a disciplinary\\naction. See Pope v. U.S. Postal Serv., 114 F.3d 1144, 1147\\n(Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Hale v. Dep’t of Transp., 772 F.2d\\n882, 885 (Fed. Cir. 1985).\\n Where whistleblowing is at issue, however, the proper\\ninquiry is not whether the agency action is justified; it is\\nwhether the agency would have acted in the same way ab-\\nsent the whistleblowing. See Miller v. Dep’t of Justice,\\n842 F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The issue [in a whis-\\ntleblower reprisal case] is whether substantial evidence\\nsupports the Board’s determination that the Government\\nshowed independent causation by clear and convincing ev-\\nidence.”). “[T]he merits cannot be the determinative factor\\nthat there was no reprisal. A meritorious adverse action\\n\\f10 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nmust be set aside where there is reprisal.” Siler, 908 F.3d\\nat 1298–99 (quoting Sullivan v. Dep’t of the Navy, 720 F.2d\\n1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Nies, J., concurring)). Thus,\\nthe Board’s independent decision to sustain the disrespect-\\nful conduct charge—however strong the underlying evi-\\ndence—did not eliminate Mr. Smith’s reprisal defense.\\nAnd it does not excuse the Board from analyzing the entire\\nrecord and determining whether the agency clearly and\\nconvincingly proved that it would have removed Mr. Smith\\neven absent his whistleblowing, not merely that it could\\nhave justifiably done so. On remand, the Board must en-\\nsure that the agency is held to its “high burden of proof.”\\nSee Whitmore, 680 F.3d at 1367 (quoting 135 Cong. Rec.\\nH747–48 (daily ed. Mar. 21, 1989) (explanatory statement\\non Senate Amendment to S. 20)).\\n C\\n The Board further erred by failing to consider Carr fac-\\ntors 2 and 3 when analyzing whether the agency clearly\\nand convincingly proved that it would have removed\\nMr. Smith notwithstanding his whistleblowing. Though\\nwe have explained that Carr imposes no affirmative bur-\\nden on the agency to produce evidence for each of the three\\nfactors, see Whitmore, 680 F.3d at 1374, the Board cannot\\nignore record evidence relevant to the existence and\\nstrength of any motive to retaliate or the treatment of sim-\\nilar employees. Rather, the Board must “provide an in\\ndepth review and full discussion of the facts to explain its\\nreasoning.” Id. at 1368. This is especially true in a case\\nsuch as this one, where the record contains ample evidence\\nrelevant to these factors.\\n The Board should have considered the evidence rele-\\nvant to the strength of the agency’s motive to retaliate.\\nMr. Smith made a number of disclosures, most of which the\\nBoard failed to address. See, e.g., J.A. 818–19 (asserting\\nregion was “$47 million behind” in billing in April 2012),\\n822–956 (providing 134 pages detailing management\\n\\fSMITH v. GSA 11\\n\\n\\n\\nfailures in March 2014), 978–1039 (arguing agency should\\n“[r]eview the consistency in which all regions have ap-\\nplied . . . national policies and procedures” in July 2014),\\n1943–44 (describing “the road to ineffective management”\\nin November 2014), 1160–61 (requesting workload review\\nin January 2016), 1988–95 (asserting need for workload re-\\nform in February 2016). The agency introduced evidence\\nthat it had legitimate concerns regarding the accuracy and\\ntone of these emails, which may cut against a finding of\\nmotive. But it is also true that management repeatedly\\nthreatened Mr. Smith with discipline if he continued to dis-\\nclose perceived mismanagement outside of his immediate\\nreporting chain. 2 See J.A. 961 (“[A]ny\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Indeed, though Mr. Smith did not seek recovery\\nbased on his supervisor’s communication restriction in this\\ncase, its breadth may independently violate the Whistle-\\nblower Protection Act, which may in turn suggest a strong\\nmotivation on the part of the agency to silence Mr. Smith.\\nSee 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). The Act prohibits a “personnel\\naction” against an employee because of any information\\ndisclosure by such employee which the employee reasona-\\nbly believes evidences (i) a violation of any law, rule, or reg-\\nulation, or (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of\\nfunds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific\\ndanger to public health or safety. Id. The statute includes\\nand protects “any” disclosure that an employee “reasonably\\nbelieves” evidences misconduct or mismanagement. Id.\\n§ 2302(b)(8)(A); Greenspan v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs,\\n464 F.3d 1297, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006). And “the implemen-\\ntation or enforcement of any nondisclosure policy” is a pro-\\nhibited “personnel action.” 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A)(xi).\\nThe agency’s order that any communication that Mr. Smith\\nwished to transmit to managers outside of the group must\\nbe approved by a supervisor was a nondisclosure policy that\\n\\f12 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ncommunication . . . to managers outside of the [group]\\nmust be approved by me before doing so. Please note that\\nfailure to comply with these instructions may result in dis-\\nciplinary action.”). And though Mr. Smith’s work evalua-\\ntions had been generally positive prior to his\\nwhistleblowing, his managers in fact suspended him and\\nthen placed him on a performance plan because of his com-\\nmunications and disclosures. Further, the record suggests\\nthat agency managers were unhappy with Mr. Smith and\\nwere embarrassed by his whistleblowing. In response to\\none of Mr. Smith’s disclosures, the deciding official replied\\nto her colleagues:\\n Oh my gosh! So, what is the status of the action\\n with HR? We need to take action immediately!\\n This is absolutely unacceptable . . . . I’m embar-\\n rassed that he is representing [the group].\\nJ.A. 1987 (ellipsis in original). In another email, Mr. Au-\\ngustus “urge[d] [Mr. Smith] . . . to avoid deviating from or\\ndistorting verifiable facts in an effort to advance your sub-\\njective motives.” J.A. 1843. The Board erred by failing to\\naddress this evidence.\\n Similarly, the Board should have considered the\\nagency’s failure to introduce evidence relevant to Carr fac-\\ntor 3—treatment of non-whistleblowers who engaged in\\nsimilar misconduct. Though Mr. Smith was punished for\\nworking over a weekend, the undisputed record indicates\\nat least one of Mr. Smith’s colleagues completed weekend\\nwork on the same weekend as Mr. Smith. But the record\\ndoes not reflect whether that colleague was penalized in\\nany way. To the extent the agency failed to introduce evi-\\ndence on how this employee or other similarly situated em-\\nployees were treated, Carr factor 3 cannot support the\\n\\n\\nrestricted Mr. Smith’s ability to make such communica-\\ntions.\\n\\fSMITH v. GSA 13\\n\\n\\n\\nagency. See, e.g., Siler, 908 F.3d at 1299 (holding that\\nwhere there is “an absence of relevant comparator evi-\\ndence, the third Carr factor cannot favor the government”);\\nMiller, 842 F.3d at 1262 (“[T]he court may not simply guess\\nwhat might happen absent whistleblowing. The burden lies\\nwith the Government.”); Whitmore, 680 F.3d at 1374\\n(“Failure to [introduce comparator evidence] may be at the\\nagency’s peril.”).\\n D\\n Accordingly, we vacate the Board’s whistleblower anal-\\nysis and remand for it to apply the appropriate legal stand-\\nard and consider the relevant evidence.\\n II\\n We next review the Board’s decision to sustain the\\ncharges against Mr. Smith, which we review for substan-\\ntial evidence. See Long v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 635 F.3d 526,\\n530 (Fed. Cir. 2011). To determine whether substantial ev-\\nidence supports the Board, we must determine whether\\n“considering the record as a whole, the agency’s evidence is\\nsufficient to be found by a reasonable factfinder to meet the\\n[agency’s] evidentiary burden.” See Leatherbury v. Dep’t of\\nthe Army, 524 F.3d 1293, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting\\nBradley v. Veterans Admin., 900 F.2d 233, 234 (Fed. Cir.\\n1990)). It is not enough that record evidence exists that, if\\n“viewed in isolation, substantiate[s] the Board’s findings.”\\nUniversal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 478, 488\\n(1951). Instead, we set aside the Board’s decision if we\\n“cannot conscientiously find that the evidence supporting\\nthat decision is substantial, when viewed in the light that\\nthe record in its entirety furnishes, including the body of\\nevidence opposed to the Board’s view.” Id. at 488. “Any\\ndetermination by [the Board] that is based on findings\\nmade in the abstract and independent of the evidence\\nwhich fairly detracts from [its] conclusions is unreasonable\\nand, as such, is not supported by substantial evidence.”\\n\\f14 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nWhitmore, 680 F.3d at 1376. We address each of the three\\nsustained charges in turn.\\n A\\n First, the Board’s decision to sustain the charge of fail-\\nure to comply with IT policy lacks substantial evidence sup-\\nport. The parties do not dispute that, to prove this charge,\\nthe agency was required to show that the employee failed\\nto follow a proper, applicable policy. The agency asserted\\nthat Mr. Smith violated IT policies applicable to him when\\nhe failed to remove his PIV card from his laptop. In affirm-\\ning the agency’s charge, the Board cited evidence favorable\\nto the agency’s position. It noted that the policy requires\\nusers to remove PIV cards from their laptops, that\\nMr. Smith was trained in the IT policy, and that Mr. Smith\\ndid not remove his PIV card.\\n We conclude, however, that the record lacks substan-\\ntial evidence to show that this policy was applicable to\\nMr. Smith. The relevant policy states that “[a]ny person\\nwith a disability that does not allow the individual to uti-\\nlize a PIV card and laptop” is within the “groups of users\\n[that] are exempt” from the requirement to use a PIV cre-\\ndential. J.A. 1827 (emphasis added). The AJ held that this\\nexemption applies only to employees unable to use a PIV\\ncard and a laptop. Based on his interpretation, the AJ con-\\ncluded that because Mr. Smith was not facially exempt\\nfrom the policy and further failed to request a special ex-\\nemption, he failed to show that his supervisors condoned\\nhim leaving his PIV card in his laptop.\\n We disagree with the AJ’s unreasonable interpretation\\nof the policy. Moreover, the fact that Mr. Smith failed to\\nrequest a special exemption from the IT policy does not re-\\nsolve the issue of whether his supervisors condoned his ac-\\ntions, creating a de facto exemption. It is undisputed that\\nMr. Smith is a quadriplegic. It is undisputed that\\nMr. Smith’s supervisors were aware that he is a quadriple-\\ngic. Oral Arg. at 19:57–20:40, http://oralarguments.cafc.\\n\\fSMITH v. GSA 15\\n\\n\\n\\nuscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2018-1604.mp3 (conceding\\nsupervisors “knew that [Mr. Smith] had challenges with\\ndexterity” and “knew that he would have difficulty” com-\\nplying with IT policy). It is undisputed that he cannot\\nphysically remove a PIV card. Until the summer of 2016,\\nMr. Smith had never been corrected by his supervisors for\\nfailing to remove his PIV card and accordingly, he believed\\nhimself to be exempt from the PIV IT policy because of his\\ndisability. J.A. 365–68 (stating second supervisor was\\naware of Mr. Smith’s inability to remove PIV card because\\nthe supervisor had assisted Mr. Smith in moving offices),\\n436 (first supervisor agreeing she had never seen\\nMr. Smith remove a PIV card); Oral Arg. at 20:49–22:45\\n(conceding agency introduced no evidence contradicting\\nMr. Smith’s testimony on these points). The Board failed\\nto address this evidence. On this record, substantial evi-\\ndence does not support the Board’s decision to sustain this\\ncharge, and we reverse the Board’s decision sustaining this\\ncharge.\\n B\\n Second, the Board’s decision to sustain the weekend\\nwork specification, offered by the agency in support of its\\nfailure to follow supervisory instructions charge, similarly\\nlacks substantial evidence support. In sustaining the\\nagency’s specification, the Board stated that Mr. Augustus\\nhad instructed Mr. Smith not to work over the weekend\\nand that two days later, Mr. Smith nevertheless sent an\\nemail over the weekend. While each point is facially cor-\\nrect, the Board’s analysis is defective. Proof of a failure to\\nfollow instructions charge requires the agency to show that\\nan employee failed to follow a proper instruction, see Ham-\\nilton v. U.S. Postal Serv., 71 M.S.P.R. 547, 556 (1996), but\\nthe Board failed to discuss the propriety of Mr. Augustus’s\\ninstruction, despite facts that draw it into question. The\\nagency introduced no formal policy forbidding weekend\\nwork, no evidence that other employees had been in-\\nstructed to not work on the weekend, and no supporting\\n\\f16 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nrationale for imposing this ban on Mr. Smith alone. Oral\\nArg. at 36:41–37:52. Moreover, it was undisputed that\\nMr. Smith had regularly worked over the weekend to\\ntimely complete work due to his health issues; that the\\nemail at issue was written during business hours and re-\\nquired only minutes to complete over the weekend; and\\nthat he sent the email over the weekend only because an-\\nother employee first sent him information over the week-\\nend. 3 In light of the whole record, the Board’s\\ndetermination is unsupported by substantial evidence. Ac-\\ncordingly, we reverse the Board’s decision as to this speci-\\nfication.\\n We affirm the Board’s decision to sustain the remain-\\ning specifications of the failure to follow instructions\\ncharge. But because we have reversed the Board’s findings\\non one of the specifications underlying that charge, on re-\\nmand, the Board must determine whether the charge as a\\nwhole may be sustained.\\n C\\n We also affirm the Board’s decision sustaining the dis-\\nrespectful conduct charge. Mr. Smith urges us to hold that\\nthe Board also erred in its consideration of the specifica-\\ntions related to that charge, but for each, Mr. Smith merely\\nargues that circumstances excused his disrespectful con-\\nduct. See Pet’r’s Br. 30–37. Though, as discussed below,\\nthe Board must consider any mitigating circumstances in\\nits penalty analysis, substantial evidence supports the\\nBoard’s decision to sustain the specifications themselves.\\nSee Webster v. Dep’t of the Army, 911 F.2d 679, 684\\n(Fed. Cir. 1990) (affirming Board decision to sustain\\ncharges where findings were “undisputed by [petitioner],\\nwho admits to the conduct alleged but offers excuses”).\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 The record does not indicate whether Mr. Smith’s\\ncoworker was similarly disciplined for his weekend work.\\n\\fSMITH v. GSA 17\\n\\n\\n\\n III\\n Finally, we consider the Board’s decision that the\\nagency acted reasonably in removing Mr. Smith. In deter-\\nmining the reasonableness of the penalty imposed by an\\nagency, the Board considers the factors outlined in Douglas\\nv. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.B. 313 (1981). The\\npenalty chosen by the agency must represent a responsible\\nbalancing of the relevant Douglas factors. Mr. Smith ar-\\ngues that the agency’s analysis of the eleventh Douglas fac-\\ntor, “mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense,”\\nwhich include “unusual job tensions, personality prob-\\nlems, . . . or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of\\nothers involved in the matter,” id. at 332, was deficient and\\nthat the Board erred in affirming the agency’s penalty.\\n We do not reach this specific argument. The Board did\\nnot sustain all of the charges and we have concluded that\\nothers are not supported by substantial evidence. We have\\nalso vacated the Board’s analysis of Mr. Smith’s whistle-\\nblower defense. If, on remand, the Board concludes that\\nthe agency would not have removed Mr. Smith absent his\\nwhistleblowing, “the agency’s removal decision may not\\nstand.” Siler, 908 F.3d at 1298, 1300 (“The Board has no\\ndiscretion to affirm a penalty tainted by illegal reprisal,\\neven if the agency’s penalty might otherwise have been rea-\\nsonable.”); 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(2)(B). And if, on remand, the\\nBoard concludes otherwise, the Board must consider\\nwhether to mitigate the penalty in light of our reversal of\\ncertain charges. See, e.g., Hathaway v. Dep’t of Justice,\\n384 F.3d 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004).\\n Accordingly, we vacate the Board’s decision as to the\\nreasonableness of the penalty. See Wrocklage v. Dep’t of\\nHomeland Sec., 769 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). On\\nremand, the Board must consider whether the penalty of\\nremoval may be sustained or whether remand to the\\nagency is necessary to reassess the appropriate penalty. In\\naddition, the Board must perform a thorough analysis of\\n\\f18 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nthe mitigating circumstances identified by Mr. Smith—\\nparticularly that the statements underlying the disrespect-\\nful conduct charge were based on his belief that Mr. Augus-\\ntus was acting contrary to Mr. Smith’s position description.\\nSee, e.g., Pet’r’s Br. 30–37. The Board should also consider\\nthe propriety of the breadth of Mr. Smith’s supervisors’\\ncommunication bans in evaluating the reasonableness of\\nany penalty. See, e.g., J.A. 961 (“[A]ny communication that\\nyou wish to transmit (verbally or electronically) to manag-\\ners outside of the [group] must be approved by me . . . .”\\n(emphases added)), 513 (“[C]ommunicate and coordinate\\nwith me via email prior to generating, compiling and for-\\nwarding any reports, direction, data requests or analytical\\nnarratives to the region.” (emphasis added)).\\n CONCLUSION\\n We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments\\nand find them unpersuasive. For the reasons above, we\\nvacate the Board’s decision and remand for reconsideration\\nof Mr. Smith’s reprisal defense and the agency’s chosen\\npenalty.\\n AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART,\\n VACATED AND REMANDED\\n COSTS\\n Costs to petitioner.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4418509/\", \"author_raw\": \"STOLL, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WALLACH"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"TARANTO"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"STOLL"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641256/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Robert Wesley SMITH, Petitioner v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-07-19\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n ROBERT WESLEY SMITH,\n Petitioner\n\n v.\n\n GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,\n Respondent\n ______________________\n\n 2018-1604\n ______________________\n\n Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection\nBoard in No. AT-0752-17-0470-I-1.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: July 19, 2019\n ______________________\n\n JOHN THOMAS HARRINGTON, The Employment Law\nGroup, PC, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. Also\nrepresented by ROBERT SCOTT OSWALD.\n\n JESSICA R. TOPLIN, Commercial Litigation Branch,\nCivil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-\nington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by\nLISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.,\nJOSEPH H. HUNT.\n ______________________\n\n Before WALLACH, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\n\f2 SMITH v. GSA\n\n\n\n\nSTOLL, Circuit Judge.\n Mr. Robert Smith worked at the General Services Ad-\nministration for nearly 30 years before GSA removed him.\nMr. Smith appealed that decision to the Merit Systems\nProtection Board, asserting that the agency failed to show\nhis actions warranted removal and that the agency had re-\ntaliated against him for his repeated disclosure of gross\nmismanagement and waste.\n The Board agreed that Mr. Smith was a whistleblower\nand that his protected disclosures contributed to the\nagency’s decision to remove him. The Board nevertheless\naffirmed the agency’s decision. Without addressing evi-\ndence relevant to the agency’s motive to retaliate or its\ntreatment of other similarly situated non-whistleblowers—\nlegal error in itself—the Board ruled that because the\nagency had introduced strong evidence of misconduct, re-\nmoval was justified. In doing so, the Board conflated two\ndistinct inquiries: whether the agency’s penalty was rea-\nsonable and whether the agency would have imposed that\nsame penalty absent Mr. Smith’s protected whistleblowing.\nThis was error. The Board additionally erred in sustaining\ncertain charges. Accordingly, we reverse those charges, af-\nfirm others, and vacate the Board’s decision. We remand\nfor it to address the merits of Mr. Smith’s whistleblower\ndefense, as well as the agency’s chosen penalty, under the\nproper legal standards.\n BACKGROUND\n Mr. Smith began working at GSA in 1989. Over the\ncourse of his career, he worked in various realty and finan-\ncial management positions, eventually becoming a Senior\nFinancial Advisor. For much of his career, Mr. Smith re-\nceived positive performance evaluations and faced no dis-\ncipline. In each of his fiscal year evaluations from 2006\nthrough 2015, Mr. Smith received either “highly” or “fully\nsuccessful” ratings, and in 2011, Mr. Smith received a Na-\ntional Achievement Award for Asset Management.\n\fSMITH v. GSA 3\n\n\n\n Over time, Mr. Smith became concerned that GSA was\nunder-collecting rent and ineffectively managing its assets.\nHe began sending emails to the agency’s regional leader-\nship describing these issues and advocating change. See,\ne.g., J.A. 818–19 (asserting region was “$47 million behind”\nin billing in April 2012), 822–956 (providing 134 pages de-\ntailing management failures in March 2014), 978–1039 (ar-\nguing agency should “[r]eview the consistency in which all\nregions have applied . . . national policies and procedures”\nin July 2014), 1943–44 (describing “[t]he Road to Ineffec-\ntive Management” in November 2014).\n As Mr. Smith continued to send these emails, his im-\nmediate supervisors began restricting his ability to corre-\nspond directly with upper management. In late 2014, his\nsecond-line supervisor informed him that sending such\n“message[s] to the Regional Commissioner was inappropri-\nate.” J.A. 1940. And his then first-line supervisor wrote\nthat because “the tone of many of your communications\n. . . is inappropriate” and “concerns have been raised re-\ngarding the accuracy of [your] information”:\n [A]ny communication that you wish to transmit\n (verbally or electronically) to managers outside of\n the [group] must be approved by me before doing so.\n Please note that failure to comply with these in-\n structions may result in disciplinary action.\nJ.A. 961 (first emphasis added); see also J.A. 1948 (reiter-\nating “[a]ny communication that you wish to transmit (ver-\nbally or electronically) to managers outside of [standard\nmanagement channels] must be approved by me before do-\ning so”).\n In 2015, GSA reorganized, and Mr. Smith received a\nnew first-line supervisor and a revised position description.\nMr. Smith understood his new position description to elim-\ninate any communication restriction. Though his new su-\npervisor reiterated that “your new Position Description\ndoes not supersede the communication instructions you\n\f4 SMITH v. GSA\n\n\n\n\nreceived via e-mail on December 11 and 12, 2014 from\n[your previous supervisor],” J.A. 1932–33, Mr. Smith nev-\nertheless sent another email to upper management in De-\ncember 2015. The 87-page document, titled “Performance\nDiagnostic: A Guide to Move the Region to Performance\nSustainability,” identified areas of mismanagement and of-\nfered strategies to recapture lost rents and reduce ineffi-\nciencies. J.A. 1848–1930. Additional emails followed in\nJanuary and February 2016.\n In February 2016, Mr. Roman Augustus became\nMr. Smith’s immediate supervisor. In March, he again in-\nstructed Mr. Smith to “please communicate and coordinate\nwith me via email prior to generating, compiling and for-\nwarding any reports, direction, data requests or analytical\nnarratives to the region.” J.A. 513. Shortly thereafter,\nMr. Augustus proposed that Mr. Smith be suspended for\nhis failure to follow his previous supervisors’ similar com-\nmunication instructions. The agency imposed that suspen-\nsion in June 2016.\n Over the spring and summer of 2016, Mr. Smith’s and\nMr. Augustus’s relationship became increasingly conten-\ntious. Mr. Augustus complained that Mr. Smith failed to\ntimely forward documents, and Mr. Smith responded by\nemail “[c]all me a liar—or just confront me with any mild\ninfraction of your rules—I can handle it.” J.A. 1840. Dur-\ning meetings, Mr. Smith challenged Mr. Augustus’s au-\nthority, stating, “[y]ou are my administrative supervisor,”\n“[y]ou cannot self-direct me,” “[d]on’t put regulations on\nme,” J.A. 371–72, “[y]ou’re not supposed to be giving me\ntasks,” and “I am next to you, not under you,” J.A. 378–79.\nIn a letter, Mr. Smith complained to human resources that\nMr. Augustus’s management approach amounted to “dic-\ntates or child-like amonmondisshments [sic].” J.A. 1614.\nAnd in another document, Mr. Smith urged agency officials\nthat “moving forward, [Mr. Augustus] is prohibited from\ninterfering with the duties, obligations, and authorities as\npromulgated in the [2015 revised position description].”\n\fSMITH v. GSA 5\n\n\n\nJ.A. 4. Mr. Augustus felt that on each of these five occa-\nsions, Mr. Smith had been disrespectful.\n Mr. Augustus responded by informing Mr. Smith that\n“such conduct will not be tolerated and may result in disci-\nplinary action.” J.A. 1840. He reprimanded Mr. Smith for\nfailing to follow instructions regarding how and when tasks\nshould be completed. And he issued a record of infraction,\naccusing Mr. Smith of violating GSA’s information technol-\nogy (“IT”) policy by leaving his computer access card (“PIV”\ncard) unattended in his laptop in his cubicle. Mr. Augustus\ndid not acknowledge that Mr. Smith, a quadriplegic, had\nnever removed the PIV card from his laptop because he was\nphysically unable to do so.\n On September 14, 2016, Mr. Augustus proposed remov-\ning Mr. Smith from his position. Mr. Augustus charged\nMr. Smith with failure to comply with IT policy, failure to\nfollow supervisory instructions, and disrespectful conduct\ntowards a supervisor. 1 The deciding official determined\nthat “the reasons for [the] proposed removal fully support\nand justify” removal, and the agency removed Mr. Smith\nfrom his position. J.A. 1664.\n II\n Mr. Smith appealed to the Board, arguing that the\ncharged conduct did not merit discipline and that the\nagency was retaliating against him for his whistleblowing.\nSee 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511–15; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3(a)(1). The Ad-\nministrative Judge (“AJ”) agreed that Mr. Smith was a\nwhistleblower because of his December 2015 “Performance\nDiagnostic” disclosure. The AJ further found that, based\non the timing, a reasonable person could conclude that\nMr. Smith’s disclosure contributed to the agency’s decision\nto remove Mr. Smith. Nevertheless, the AJ affirmed GSA’s\n\n\n 1 A fourth charge, absence without leave, was not\nsustained by the Board and is not at issue on appeal.\n\f6 SMITH v. GSA\n\n\n\n\ndecision, concluding that the government had shown by\nclear and convincing evidence that it would have removed\nMr. Smith regardless of his whistleblowing.\n The AJ began by considering the charges. The agency\nsupported the charge of failure to comply with IT policy\nwith a single specification that described Mr. Smith’s fail-\nure to remove his PIV card from his laptop. The AJ found\nthat Mr. Smith had notice of the IT policy and did not dis-\npute that he failed to remove his PIV card from his laptop\nas required by that policy. Though it was undisputed that\nMr. Smith could not physically remove his PIV card from\nhis laptop, the AJ further found that Mr. Smith was not\nprotected by the IT policy’s exception for persons with dis-\nabilities.\n The AJ also sustained the charge of failure to comply\nwith supervisory instructions. GSA identified three inci-\ndents supporting the charge: that Mr. Smith had sent a\nshort email on a weekend despite direction by Mr. Augus-\ntus not to work on weekends, and that Mr. Smith had twice\nfailed to timely forward documents to Mr. Augustus in the\nmanner instructed. The AJ found that in all three in-\nstances, Mr. Smith admitted both that he had received in-\nstructions from Mr. Augustus and that he had not followed\nthem.\n Similarly, the AJ sustained the charge of disrespectful\nconduct, which relied on the five previously discussed\nstatements made by Mr. Smith to Mr. Augustus.\nMr. Smith admitted to making each of the statements, and\nthe AJ found that all five were “rude, discourteous, defiant,\nand/or challenging or undermining the authority of his su-\npervisor, Roman Augustus.” J.A. 4.\n The AJ found an “obvious nexus” between the sus-\ntained charges and the efficiency of the service. J.A. 13.\nAnd though he had not sustained a fourth charge, the AJ\nnevertheless found that given the seriousness of the sus-\ntained charges and Mr. Smith’s prior suspension on similar\n\fSMITH v. GSA 7\n\n\n\ngrounds, the agency’s decision to remove Mr. Smith was\nnot unreasonable.\n The AJ acknowledged that even though he had found\nthe penalty reasonable, the agency’s decision could not be\nupheld if Mr. Smith proved his affirmative defense of whis-\ntleblower reprisal. The AJ found that Mr. Smith had met\nhis burden of showing both that he was a whistleblower\nand that his statutorily protected disclosures contributed\nto GSA’s decision to remove him. But in two sentences, the\nAJ ruled that:\n [B]ased on the strength of the agency’s evi-\n dence . . . it proved by clear and convincing evi-\n dence that it would have taken the same personnel\n action (removal) absent any disclosure. Indeed, I\n find that the defiantly disrespectful misconduct de-\n scribed . . . alone would have justified his removal,\n especially in light of his previous suspension for\n similar misconduct.\nJ.A. 21–22.\n The AJ’s decision became the final decision of the\nBoard, see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113, and Mr. Smith timely\nsought review in this court, see 5 U.S.C. § 7703. We have\njurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).\n DISCUSSION\n By statute, we must “hold unlawful and set aside” ac-\ntions, findings, or conclusions of the Board if they are\n(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or other-\nwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without pro-\ncedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been\nfollowed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.\n5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); see Cobert v. Miller, 800 F.3d 1340,\n1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We review the Board’s legal con-\nclusions de novo and its fact findings for substantial evi-\ndence. See Campbell v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 27 F.3d 1560,\n1564 (Fed. Cir. 1994).\n\f8 SMITH v. GSA\n\n\n\n\n I\n We first address the Board’s treatment of Mr. Smith’s\nwhistleblower defense. Because the Board applied an in-\ncorrect legal standard and ignored relevant evidence, we\nvacate its decision.\n A\n Statute prohibits an agency from penalizing its em-\nployees for whistleblowing. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). An\nemployee who believes he has been subjected to illegal re-\ntaliation must prove by a preponderance of the evidence\nthat he made a protected disclosure that contributed to the\nagency’s action against him. See Whitmore v. Dep’t of La-\nbor, 680 F.3d 1353, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “If the employee\nestablishes this prima facie case of reprisal for whistle-\nblowing, the burden of persuasion shifts to the agency to\nshow by clear and convincing evidence that it would have\ntaken ‘the same personnel action in the absence of such dis-\nclosure.’” Id. at 1364 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)). If the\nagency does not show by clear and convincing evidence that\nit would have taken the same action absent the whistle-\nblowing, the agency’s penalty cannot be affirmed. See Siler\nv. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 908 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2018).\nIn determining whether the agency has carried its burden,\nwe have instructed the Board to consider three nonexclu-\nsive factors:\n [1] the strength of the agency’s evidence in support\n of its personnel action; [2] the existence and\n strength of any motive to retaliate on the part of\n the agency officials who were involved in the deci-\n sion; and [3] any evidence that the agency takes\n similar actions against employees who are not\n whistleblowers but who are otherwise similarly sit-\n uated.\nCarr v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 185 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir.\n1999).\n\fSMITH v. GSA 9\n\n\n\n B\n Here, the Board’s discussion of the Carr factors is all of\ntwo sentences:\n I further find based on the strength of the agency’s\n evidence that it proved by clear and convincing ev-\n idence that it would have taken the same personnel\n action (removal) absent any disclosure. Indeed, I\n find that the defiantly disrespectful misconduct de-\n scribed . . . alone would have justified his removal,\n especially in light of his previous suspension for\n similar misconduct.\nJ.A. 21–22. While the first sentence states the correct legal\nstandard, the Board did not provide any analysis of the\nCarr factors. Moreover, the second sentence applies an in-\ncorrect standard, averring that Mr. Smith’s misconduct\nalone justified the agency’s action. Contrary to the Board’s\nstatement, the merits of a whistleblower defense do not\nturn on the strength of the agency’s evidence alone or on\nwhether the misconduct justified removal. Those points\nspeak to whether the agency met its burden to prove that\nmisconduct occurred, discipline is warranted, and the cho-\nsen penalty is reasonable, factors the agency must show by\npreponderant evidence in every appeal from a disciplinary\naction. See Pope v. U.S. Postal Serv., 114 F.3d 1144, 1147\n(Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Hale v. Dep’t of Transp., 772 F.2d\n882, 885 (Fed. Cir. 1985).\n Where whistleblowing is at issue, however, the proper\ninquiry is not whether the agency action is justified; it is\nwhether the agency would have acted in the same way ab-\nsent the whistleblowing. See Miller v. Dep’t of Justice,\n842 F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The issue [in a whis-\ntleblower reprisal case] is whether substantial evidence\nsupports the Board’s determination that the Government\nshowed independent causation by clear and convincing ev-\nidence.”). “[T]he merits cannot be the determinative factor\nthat there was no reprisal. A meritorious adverse action\n\f10 SMITH v. GSA\n\n\n\n\nmust be set aside where there is reprisal.” Siler, 908 F.3d\nat 1298–99 (quoting Sullivan v. Dep’t of the Navy, 720 F.2d\n1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Nies, J., concurring)). Thus,\nthe Board’s independent decision to sustain the disrespect-\nful conduct charge—however strong the underlying evi-\ndence—did not eliminate Mr. Smith’s reprisal defense.\nAnd it does not excuse the Board from analyzing the entire\nrecord and determining whether the agency clearly and\nconvincingly proved that it would have removed Mr. Smith\neven absent his whistleblowing, not merely that it could\nhave justifiably done so. On remand, the Board must en-\nsure that the agency is held to its “high burden of proof.”\nSee Whitmore, 680 F.3d at 1367 (quoting 135 Cong. Rec.\nH747–48 (daily ed. Mar. 21, 1989) (explanatory statement\non Senate Amendment to S. 20)).\n C\n The Board further erred by failing to consider Carr fac-\ntors 2 and 3 when analyzing whether the agency clearly\nand convincingly proved that it would have removed\nMr. Smith notwithstanding his whistleblowing. Though\nwe have explained that Carr imposes no affirmative bur-\nden on the agency to produce evidence for each of the three\nfactors, see Whitmore, 680 F.3d at 1374, the Board cannot\nignore record evidence relevant to the existence and\nstrength of any motive to retaliate or the treatment of sim-\nilar employees. Rather, the Board must “provide an in\ndepth review and full discussion of the facts to explain its\nreasoning.” Id. at 1368. This is especially true in a case\nsuch as this one, where the record contains ample evidence\nrelevant to these factors.\n The Board should have considered the evidence rele-\nvant to the strength of the agency’s motive to retaliate.\nMr. Smith made a number of disclosures, most of which the\nBoard failed to address. See, e.g., J.A. 818–19 (asserting\nregion was “$47 million behind” in billing in April 2012),\n822–956 (providing 134 pages detailing management\n\fSMITH v. GSA 11\n\n\n\nfailures in March 2014), 978–1039 (arguing agency should\n“[r]eview the consistency in which all regions have ap-\nplied . . . national policies and procedures” in July 2014),\n1943–44 (describing “the road to ineffective management”\nin November 2014), 1160–61 (requesting workload review\nin January 2016), 1988–95 (asserting need for workload re-\nform in February 2016). The agency introduced evidence\nthat it had legitimate concerns regarding the accuracy and\ntone of these emails, which may cut against a finding of\nmotive. But it is also true that management repeatedly\nthreatened Mr. Smith with discipline if he continued to dis-\nclose perceived mismanagement outside of his immediate\nreporting chain. 2 See J.A. 961 (“[A]ny\n\n\n\n\n 2 Indeed, though Mr. Smith did not seek recovery\nbased on his supervisor’s communication restriction in this\ncase, its breadth may independently violate the Whistle-\nblower Protection Act, which may in turn suggest a strong\nmotivation on the part of the agency to silence Mr. Smith.\nSee 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). The Act prohibits a “personnel\naction” against an employee because of any information\ndisclosure by such employee which the employee reasona-\nbly believes evidences (i) a violation of any law, rule, or reg-\nulation, or (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of\nfunds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific\ndanger to public health or safety. Id. The statute includes\nand protects “any” disclosure that an employee “reasonably\nbelieves” evidences misconduct or mismanagement. Id.\n§ 2302(b)(8)(A); Greenspan v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs,\n464 F.3d 1297, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006). And “the implemen-\ntation or enforcement of any nondisclosure policy” is a pro-\nhibited “personnel action.” 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A)(xi).\nThe agency’s order that any communication that Mr. Smith\nwished to transmit to managers outside of the group must\nbe approved by a supervisor was a nondisclosure policy that\n\f12 SMITH v. GSA\n\n\n\n\ncommunication . . . to managers outside of the [group]\nmust be approved by me before doing so. Please note that\nfailure to comply with these instructions may result in dis-\nciplinary action.”). And though Mr. Smith’s work evalua-\ntions had been generally positive prior to his\nwhistleblowing, his managers in fact suspended him and\nthen placed him on a performance plan because of his com-\nmunications and disclosures. Further, the record suggests\nthat agency managers were unhappy with Mr. Smith and\nwere embarrassed by his whistleblowing. In response to\none of Mr. Smith’s disclosures, the deciding official replied\nto her colleagues:\n Oh my gosh! So, what is the status of the action\n with HR? We need to take action immediately!\n This is absolutely unacceptable . . . . I’m embar-\n rassed that he is representing [the group].\nJ.A. 1987 (ellipsis in original). In another email, Mr. Au-\ngustus “urge[d] [Mr. Smith] . . . to avoid deviating from or\ndistorting verifiable facts in an effort to advance your sub-\njective motives.” J.A. 1843. The Board erred by failing to\naddress this evidence.\n Similarly, the Board should have considered the\nagency’s failure to introduce evidence relevant to Carr fac-\ntor 3—treatment of non-whistleblowers who engaged in\nsimilar misconduct. Though Mr. Smith was punished for\nworking over a weekend, the undisputed record indicates\nat least one of Mr. Smith’s colleagues completed weekend\nwork on the same weekend as Mr. Smith. But the record\ndoes not reflect whether that colleague was penalized in\nany way. To the extent the agency failed to introduce evi-\ndence on how this employee or other similarly situated em-\nployees were treated, Carr factor 3 cannot support the\n\n\nrestricted Mr. Smith’s ability to make such communica-\ntions.\n\fSMITH v. GSA 13\n\n\n\nagency. See, e.g., Siler, 908 F.3d at 1299 (holding that\nwhere there is “an absence of relevant comparator evi-\ndence, the third Carr factor cannot favor the government”);\nMiller, 842 F.3d at 1262 (“[T]he court may not simply guess\nwhat might happen absent whistleblowing. The burden lies\nwith the Government.”); Whitmore, 680 F.3d at 1374\n(“Failure to [introduce comparator evidence] may be at the\nagency’s peril.”).\n D\n Accordingly, we vacate the Board’s whistleblower anal-\nysis and remand for it to apply the appropriate legal stand-\nard and consider the relevant evidence.\n II\n We next review the Board’s decision to sustain the\ncharges against Mr. Smith, which we review for substan-\ntial evidence. See Long v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 635 F.3d 526,\n530 (Fed. Cir. 2011). To determine whether substantial ev-\nidence supports the Board, we must determine whether\n“considering the record as a whole, the agency’s evidence is\nsufficient to be found by a reasonable factfinder to meet the\n[agency’s] evidentiary burden.” See Leatherbury v. Dep’t of\nthe Army, 524 F.3d 1293, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting\nBradley v. Veterans Admin., 900 F.2d 233, 234 (Fed. Cir.\n1990)). It is not enough that record evidence exists that, if\n“viewed in isolation, substantiate[s] the Board’s findings.”\nUniversal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 478, 488\n(1951). Instead, we set aside the Board’s decision if we\n“cannot conscientiously find that the evidence supporting\nthat decision is substantial, when viewed in the light that\nthe record in its entirety furnishes, including the body of\nevidence opposed to the Board’s view.” Id. at 488. “Any\ndetermination by [the Board] that is based on findings\nmade in the abstract and independent of the evidence\nwhich fairly detracts from [its] conclusions is unreasonable\nand, as such, is not supported by substantial evidence.”\n\f14 SMITH v. GSA\n\n\n\n\nWhitmore, 680 F.3d at 1376. We address each of the three\nsustained charges in turn.\n A\n First, the Board’s decision to sustain the charge of fail-\nure to comply with IT policy lacks substantial evidence sup-\nport. The parties do not dispute that, to prove this charge,\nthe agency was required to show that the employee failed\nto follow a proper, applicable policy. The agency asserted\nthat Mr. Smith violated IT policies applicable to him when\nhe failed to remove his PIV card from his laptop. In affirm-\ning the agency’s charge, the Board cited evidence favorable\nto the agency’s position. It noted that the policy requires\nusers to remove PIV cards from their laptops, that\nMr. Smith was trained in the IT policy, and that Mr. Smith\ndid not remove his PIV card.\n We conclude, however, that the record lacks substan-\ntial evidence to show that this policy was applicable to\nMr. Smith. The relevant policy states that “[a]ny person\nwith a disability that does not allow the individual to uti-\nlize a PIV card and laptop” is within the “groups of users\n[that] are exempt” from the requirement to use a PIV cre-\ndential. J.A. 1827 (emphasis added). The AJ held that this\nexemption applies only to employees unable to use a PIV\ncard and a laptop. Based on his interpretation, the AJ con-\ncluded that because Mr. Smith was not facially exempt\nfrom the policy and further failed to request a special ex-\nemption, he failed to show that his supervisors condoned\nhim leaving his PIV card in his laptop.\n We disagree with the AJ’s unreasonable interpretation\nof the policy. Moreover, the fact that Mr. Smith failed to\nrequest a special exemption from the IT policy does not re-\nsolve the issue of whether his supervisors condoned his ac-\ntions, creating a de facto exemption. It is undisputed that\nMr. Smith is a quadriplegic. It is undisputed that\nMr. Smith’s supervisors were aware that he is a quadriple-\ngic. Oral Arg. at 19:57–20:40, http://oralarguments.cafc.\n\fSMITH v. GSA 15\n\n\n\nuscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2018-1604.mp3 (conceding\nsupervisors “knew that [Mr. Smith] had challenges with\ndexterity” and “knew that he would have difficulty” com-\nplying with IT policy). It is undisputed that he cannot\nphysically remove a PIV card. Until the summer of 2016,\nMr. Smith had never been corrected by his supervisors for\nfailing to remove his PIV card and accordingly, he believed\nhimself to be exempt from the PIV IT policy because of his\ndisability. J.A. 365–68 (stating second supervisor was\naware of Mr. Smith’s inability to remove PIV card because\nthe supervisor had assisted Mr. Smith in moving offices),\n436 (first supervisor agreeing she had never seen\nMr. Smith remove a PIV card); Oral Arg. at 20:49–22:45\n(conceding agency introduced no evidence contradicting\nMr. Smith’s testimony on these points). The Board failed\nto address this evidence. On this record, substantial evi-\ndence does not support the Board’s decision to sustain this\ncharge, and we reverse the Board’s decision sustaining this\ncharge.\n B\n Second, the Board’s decision to sustain the weekend\nwork specification, offered by the agency in support of its\nfailure to follow supervisory instructions charge, similarly\nlacks substantial evidence support. In sustaining the\nagency’s specification, the Board stated that Mr. Augustus\nhad instructed Mr. Smith not to work over the weekend\nand that two days later, Mr. Smith nevertheless sent an\nemail over the weekend. While each point is facially cor-\nrect, the Board’s analysis is defective. Proof of a failure to\nfollow instructions charge requires the agency to show that\nan employee failed to follow a proper instruction, see Ham-\nilton v. U.S. Postal Serv., 71 M.S.P.R. 547, 556 (1996), but\nthe Board failed to discuss the propriety of Mr. Augustus’s\ninstruction, despite facts that draw it into question. The\nagency introduced no formal policy forbidding weekend\nwork, no evidence that other employees had been in-\nstructed to not work on the weekend, and no supporting\n\f16 SMITH v. GSA\n\n\n\n\nrationale for imposing this ban on Mr. Smith alone. Oral\nArg. at 36:41–37:52. Moreover, it was undisputed that\nMr. Smith had regularly worked over the weekend to\ntimely complete work due to his health issues; that the\nemail at issue was written during business hours and re-\nquired only minutes to complete over the weekend; and\nthat he sent the email over the weekend only because an-\nother employee first sent him information over the week-\nend. 3 In light of the whole record, the Board’s\ndetermination is unsupported by substantial evidence. Ac-\ncordingly, we reverse the Board’s decision as to this speci-\nfication.\n We affirm the Board’s decision to sustain the remain-\ning specifications of the failure to follow instructions\ncharge. But because we have reversed the Board’s findings\non one of the specifications underlying that charge, on re-\nmand, the Board must determine whether the charge as a\nwhole may be sustained.\n C\n We also affirm the Board’s decision sustaining the dis-\nrespectful conduct charge. Mr. Smith urges us to hold that\nthe Board also erred in its consideration of the specifica-\ntions related to that charge, but for each, Mr. Smith merely\nargues that circumstances excused his disrespectful con-\nduct. See Pet’r’s Br. 30–37. Though, as discussed below,\nthe Board must consider any mitigating circumstances in\nits penalty analysis, substantial evidence supports the\nBoard’s decision to sustain the specifications themselves.\nSee Webster v. Dep’t of the Army, 911 F.2d 679, 684\n(Fed. Cir. 1990) (affirming Board decision to sustain\ncharges where findings were “undisputed by [petitioner],\nwho admits to the conduct alleged but offers excuses”).\n\n\n\n 3 The record does not indicate whether Mr. Smith’s\ncoworker was similarly disciplined for his weekend work.\n\fSMITH v. GSA 17\n\n\n\n III\n Finally, we consider the Board’s decision that the\nagency acted reasonably in removing Mr. Smith. In deter-\nmining the reasonableness of the penalty imposed by an\nagency, the Board considers the factors outlined in Douglas\nv. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.B. 313 (1981). The\npenalty chosen by the agency must represent a responsible\nbalancing of the relevant Douglas factors. Mr. Smith ar-\ngues that the agency’s analysis of the eleventh Douglas fac-\ntor, “mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense,”\nwhich include “unusual job tensions, personality prob-\nlems, . . . or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of\nothers involved in the matter,” id. at 332, was deficient and\nthat the Board erred in affirming the agency’s penalty.\n We do not reach this specific argument. The Board did\nnot sustain all of the charges and we have concluded that\nothers are not supported by substantial evidence. We have\nalso vacated the Board’s analysis of Mr. Smith’s whistle-\nblower defense. If, on remand, the Board concludes that\nthe agency would not have removed Mr. Smith absent his\nwhistleblowing, “the agency’s removal decision may not\nstand.” Siler, 908 F.3d at 1298, 1300 (“The Board has no\ndiscretion to affirm a penalty tainted by illegal reprisal,\neven if the agency’s penalty might otherwise have been rea-\nsonable.”); 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(2)(B). And if, on remand, the\nBoard concludes otherwise, the Board must consider\nwhether to mitigate the penalty in light of our reversal of\ncertain charges. See, e.g., Hathaway v. Dep’t of Justice,\n384 F.3d 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004).\n Accordingly, we vacate the Board’s decision as to the\nreasonableness of the penalty. See Wrocklage v. Dep’t of\nHomeland Sec., 769 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). On\nremand, the Board must consider whether the penalty of\nremoval may be sustained or whether remand to the\nagency is necessary to reassess the appropriate penalty. In\naddition, the Board must perform a thorough analysis of\n\f18 SMITH v. GSA\n\n\n\n\nthe mitigating circumstances identified by Mr. Smith—\nparticularly that the statements underlying the disrespect-\nful conduct charge were based on his belief that Mr. Augus-\ntus was acting contrary to Mr. Smith’s position description.\nSee, e.g., Pet’r’s Br. 30–37. The Board should also consider\nthe propriety of the breadth of Mr. Smith’s supervisors’\ncommunication bans in evaluating the reasonableness of\nany penalty. See, e.g., J.A. 961 (“[A]ny communication that\nyou wish to transmit (verbally or electronically) to manag-\ners outside of the [group] must be approved by me . . . .”\n(emphases added)), 513 (“[C]ommunicate and coordinate\nwith me via email prior to generating, compiling and for-\nwarding any reports, direction, data requests or analytical\nnarratives to the region.” (emphasis added)).\n CONCLUSION\n We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments\nand find them unpersuasive. For the reasons above, we\nvacate the Board’s decision and remand for reconsideration\nof Mr. Smith’s reprisal defense and the agency’s chosen\npenalty.\n AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART,\n VACATED AND REMANDED\n COSTS\n Costs to petitioner.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Robert Wesley SMITH, Petitioner v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-07-19\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n ROBERT WESLEY SMITH,\\n Petitioner\\n\\n v.\\n\\n GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,\\n Respondent\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2018-1604\\n ______________________\\n\\n Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection\\nBoard in No. AT-0752-17-0470-I-1.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: July 19, 2019\\n ______________________\\n\\n JOHN THOMAS HARRINGTON, The Employment Law\\nGroup, PC, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. Also\\nrepresented by ROBERT SCOTT OSWALD.\\n\\n JESSICA R. TOPLIN, Commercial Litigation Branch,\\nCivil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-\\nington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by\\nLISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.,\\nJOSEPH H. HUNT.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before WALLACH, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f2 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nSTOLL, Circuit Judge.\\n Mr. Robert Smith worked at the General Services Ad-\\nministration for nearly 30 years before GSA removed him.\\nMr. Smith appealed that decision to the Merit Systems\\nProtection Board, asserting that the agency failed to show\\nhis actions warranted removal and that the agency had re-\\ntaliated against him for his repeated disclosure of gross\\nmismanagement and waste.\\n The Board agreed that Mr. Smith was a whistleblower\\nand that his protected disclosures contributed to the\\nagency’s decision to remove him. The Board nevertheless\\naffirmed the agency’s decision. Without addressing evi-\\ndence relevant to the agency’s motive to retaliate or its\\ntreatment of other similarly situated non-whistleblowers—\\nlegal error in itself—the Board ruled that because the\\nagency had introduced strong evidence of misconduct, re-\\nmoval was justified. In doing so, the Board conflated two\\ndistinct inquiries: whether the agency’s penalty was rea-\\nsonable and whether the agency would have imposed that\\nsame penalty absent Mr. Smith’s protected whistleblowing.\\nThis was error. The Board additionally erred in sustaining\\ncertain charges. Accordingly, we reverse those charges, af-\\nfirm others, and vacate the Board’s decision. We remand\\nfor it to address the merits of Mr. Smith’s whistleblower\\ndefense, as well as the agency’s chosen penalty, under the\\nproper legal standards.\\n BACKGROUND\\n Mr. Smith began working at GSA in 1989. Over the\\ncourse of his career, he worked in various realty and finan-\\ncial management positions, eventually becoming a Senior\\nFinancial Advisor. For much of his career, Mr. Smith re-\\nceived positive performance evaluations and faced no dis-\\ncipline. In each of his fiscal year evaluations from 2006\\nthrough 2015, Mr. Smith received either “highly” or “fully\\nsuccessful” ratings, and in 2011, Mr. Smith received a Na-\\ntional Achievement Award for Asset Management.\\n\\fSMITH v. GSA 3\\n\\n\\n\\n Over time, Mr. Smith became concerned that GSA was\\nunder-collecting rent and ineffectively managing its assets.\\nHe began sending emails to the agency’s regional leader-\\nship describing these issues and advocating change. See,\\ne.g., J.A. 818–19 (asserting region was “$47 million behind”\\nin billing in April 2012), 822–956 (providing 134 pages de-\\ntailing management failures in March 2014), 978–1039 (ar-\\nguing agency should “[r]eview the consistency in which all\\nregions have applied . . . national policies and procedures”\\nin July 2014), 1943–44 (describing “[t]he Road to Ineffec-\\ntive Management” in November 2014).\\n As Mr. Smith continued to send these emails, his im-\\nmediate supervisors began restricting his ability to corre-\\nspond directly with upper management. In late 2014, his\\nsecond-line supervisor informed him that sending such\\n“message[s] to the Regional Commissioner was inappropri-\\nate.” J.A. 1940. And his then first-line supervisor wrote\\nthat because “the tone of many of your communications\\n. . . is inappropriate” and “concerns have been raised re-\\ngarding the accuracy of [your] information”:\\n [A]ny communication that you wish to transmit\\n (verbally or electronically) to managers outside of\\n the [group] must be approved by me before doing so.\\n Please note that failure to comply with these in-\\n structions may result in disciplinary action.\\nJ.A. 961 (first emphasis added); see also J.A. 1948 (reiter-\\nating “[a]ny communication that you wish to transmit (ver-\\nbally or electronically) to managers outside of [standard\\nmanagement channels] must be approved by me before do-\\ning so”).\\n In 2015, GSA reorganized, and Mr. Smith received a\\nnew first-line supervisor and a revised position description.\\nMr. Smith understood his new position description to elim-\\ninate any communication restriction. Though his new su-\\npervisor reiterated that “your new Position Description\\ndoes not supersede the communication instructions you\\n\\f4 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nreceived via e-mail on December 11 and 12, 2014 from\\n[your previous supervisor],” J.A. 1932–33, Mr. Smith nev-\\nertheless sent another email to upper management in De-\\ncember 2015. The 87-page document, titled “Performance\\nDiagnostic: A Guide to Move the Region to Performance\\nSustainability,” identified areas of mismanagement and of-\\nfered strategies to recapture lost rents and reduce ineffi-\\nciencies. J.A. 1848–1930. Additional emails followed in\\nJanuary and February 2016.\\n In February 2016, Mr. Roman Augustus became\\nMr. Smith’s immediate supervisor. In March, he again in-\\nstructed Mr. Smith to “please communicate and coordinate\\nwith me via email prior to generating, compiling and for-\\nwarding any reports, direction, data requests or analytical\\nnarratives to the region.” J.A. 513. Shortly thereafter,\\nMr. Augustus proposed that Mr. Smith be suspended for\\nhis failure to follow his previous supervisors’ similar com-\\nmunication instructions. The agency imposed that suspen-\\nsion in June 2016.\\n Over the spring and summer of 2016, Mr. Smith’s and\\nMr. Augustus’s relationship became increasingly conten-\\ntious. Mr. Augustus complained that Mr. Smith failed to\\ntimely forward documents, and Mr. Smith responded by\\nemail “[c]all me a liar—or just confront me with any mild\\ninfraction of your rules—I can handle it.” J.A. 1840. Dur-\\ning meetings, Mr. Smith challenged Mr. Augustus’s au-\\nthority, stating, “[y]ou are my administrative supervisor,”\\n“[y]ou cannot self-direct me,” “[d]on’t put regulations on\\nme,” J.A. 371–72, “[y]ou’re not supposed to be giving me\\ntasks,” and “I am next to you, not under you,” J.A. 378–79.\\nIn a letter, Mr. Smith complained to human resources that\\nMr. Augustus’s management approach amounted to “dic-\\ntates or child-like amonmondisshments [sic].” J.A. 1614.\\nAnd in another document, Mr. Smith urged agency officials\\nthat “moving forward, [Mr. Augustus] is prohibited from\\ninterfering with the duties, obligations, and authorities as\\npromulgated in the [2015 revised position description].”\\n\\fSMITH v. GSA 5\\n\\n\\n\\nJ.A. 4. Mr. Augustus felt that on each of these five occa-\\nsions, Mr. Smith had been disrespectful.\\n Mr. Augustus responded by informing Mr. Smith that\\n“such conduct will not be tolerated and may result in disci-\\nplinary action.” J.A. 1840. He reprimanded Mr. Smith for\\nfailing to follow instructions regarding how and when tasks\\nshould be completed. And he issued a record of infraction,\\naccusing Mr. Smith of violating GSA’s information technol-\\nogy (“IT”) policy by leaving his computer access card (“PIV”\\ncard) unattended in his laptop in his cubicle. Mr. Augustus\\ndid not acknowledge that Mr. Smith, a quadriplegic, had\\nnever removed the PIV card from his laptop because he was\\nphysically unable to do so.\\n On September 14, 2016, Mr. Augustus proposed remov-\\ning Mr. Smith from his position. Mr. Augustus charged\\nMr. Smith with failure to comply with IT policy, failure to\\nfollow supervisory instructions, and disrespectful conduct\\ntowards a supervisor. 1 The deciding official determined\\nthat “the reasons for [the] proposed removal fully support\\nand justify” removal, and the agency removed Mr. Smith\\nfrom his position. J.A. 1664.\\n II\\n Mr. Smith appealed to the Board, arguing that the\\ncharged conduct did not merit discipline and that the\\nagency was retaliating against him for his whistleblowing.\\nSee 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511–15; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3(a)(1). The Ad-\\nministrative Judge (“AJ”) agreed that Mr. Smith was a\\nwhistleblower because of his December 2015 “Performance\\nDiagnostic” disclosure. The AJ further found that, based\\non the timing, a reasonable person could conclude that\\nMr. Smith’s disclosure contributed to the agency’s decision\\nto remove Mr. Smith. Nevertheless, the AJ affirmed GSA’s\\n\\n\\n 1 A fourth charge, absence without leave, was not\\nsustained by the Board and is not at issue on appeal.\\n\\f6 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ndecision, concluding that the government had shown by\\nclear and convincing evidence that it would have removed\\nMr. Smith regardless of his whistleblowing.\\n The AJ began by considering the charges. The agency\\nsupported the charge of failure to comply with IT policy\\nwith a single specification that described Mr. Smith’s fail-\\nure to remove his PIV card from his laptop. The AJ found\\nthat Mr. Smith had notice of the IT policy and did not dis-\\npute that he failed to remove his PIV card from his laptop\\nas required by that policy. Though it was undisputed that\\nMr. Smith could not physically remove his PIV card from\\nhis laptop, the AJ further found that Mr. Smith was not\\nprotected by the IT policy’s exception for persons with dis-\\nabilities.\\n The AJ also sustained the charge of failure to comply\\nwith supervisory instructions. GSA identified three inci-\\ndents supporting the charge: that Mr. Smith had sent a\\nshort email on a weekend despite direction by Mr. Augus-\\ntus not to work on weekends, and that Mr. Smith had twice\\nfailed to timely forward documents to Mr. Augustus in the\\nmanner instructed. The AJ found that in all three in-\\nstances, Mr. Smith admitted both that he had received in-\\nstructions from Mr. Augustus and that he had not followed\\nthem.\\n Similarly, the AJ sustained the charge of disrespectful\\nconduct, which relied on the five previously discussed\\nstatements made by Mr. Smith to Mr. Augustus.\\nMr. Smith admitted to making each of the statements, and\\nthe AJ found that all five were “rude, discourteous, defiant,\\nand/or challenging or undermining the authority of his su-\\npervisor, Roman Augustus.” J.A. 4.\\n The AJ found an “obvious nexus” between the sus-\\ntained charges and the efficiency of the service. J.A. 13.\\nAnd though he had not sustained a fourth charge, the AJ\\nnevertheless found that given the seriousness of the sus-\\ntained charges and Mr. Smith’s prior suspension on similar\\n\\fSMITH v. GSA 7\\n\\n\\n\\ngrounds, the agency’s decision to remove Mr. Smith was\\nnot unreasonable.\\n The AJ acknowledged that even though he had found\\nthe penalty reasonable, the agency’s decision could not be\\nupheld if Mr. Smith proved his affirmative defense of whis-\\ntleblower reprisal. The AJ found that Mr. Smith had met\\nhis burden of showing both that he was a whistleblower\\nand that his statutorily protected disclosures contributed\\nto GSA’s decision to remove him. But in two sentences, the\\nAJ ruled that:\\n [B]ased on the strength of the agency’s evi-\\n dence . . . it proved by clear and convincing evi-\\n dence that it would have taken the same personnel\\n action (removal) absent any disclosure. Indeed, I\\n find that the defiantly disrespectful misconduct de-\\n scribed . . . alone would have justified his removal,\\n especially in light of his previous suspension for\\n similar misconduct.\\nJ.A. 21–22.\\n The AJ’s decision became the final decision of the\\nBoard, see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113, and Mr. Smith timely\\nsought review in this court, see 5 U.S.C. § 7703. We have\\njurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).\\n DISCUSSION\\n By statute, we must “hold unlawful and set aside” ac-\\ntions, findings, or conclusions of the Board if they are\\n(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or other-\\nwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without pro-\\ncedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been\\nfollowed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.\\n5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); see Cobert v. Miller, 800 F.3d 1340,\\n1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We review the Board’s legal con-\\nclusions de novo and its fact findings for substantial evi-\\ndence. See Campbell v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 27 F.3d 1560,\\n1564 (Fed. Cir. 1994).\\n\\f8 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n I\\n We first address the Board’s treatment of Mr. Smith’s\\nwhistleblower defense. Because the Board applied an in-\\ncorrect legal standard and ignored relevant evidence, we\\nvacate its decision.\\n A\\n Statute prohibits an agency from penalizing its em-\\nployees for whistleblowing. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). An\\nemployee who believes he has been subjected to illegal re-\\ntaliation must prove by a preponderance of the evidence\\nthat he made a protected disclosure that contributed to the\\nagency’s action against him. See Whitmore v. Dep’t of La-\\nbor, 680 F.3d 1353, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “If the employee\\nestablishes this prima facie case of reprisal for whistle-\\nblowing, the burden of persuasion shifts to the agency to\\nshow by clear and convincing evidence that it would have\\ntaken ‘the same personnel action in the absence of such dis-\\nclosure.’” Id. at 1364 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)). If the\\nagency does not show by clear and convincing evidence that\\nit would have taken the same action absent the whistle-\\nblowing, the agency’s penalty cannot be affirmed. See Siler\\nv. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 908 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2018).\\nIn determining whether the agency has carried its burden,\\nwe have instructed the Board to consider three nonexclu-\\nsive factors:\\n [1] the strength of the agency’s evidence in support\\n of its personnel action; [2] the existence and\\n strength of any motive to retaliate on the part of\\n the agency officials who were involved in the deci-\\n sion; and [3] any evidence that the agency takes\\n similar actions against employees who are not\\n whistleblowers but who are otherwise similarly sit-\\n uated.\\nCarr v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 185 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir.\\n1999).\\n\\fSMITH v. GSA 9\\n\\n\\n\\n B\\n Here, the Board’s discussion of the Carr factors is all of\\ntwo sentences:\\n I further find based on the strength of the agency’s\\n evidence that it proved by clear and convincing ev-\\n idence that it would have taken the same personnel\\n action (removal) absent any disclosure. Indeed, I\\n find that the defiantly disrespectful misconduct de-\\n scribed . . . alone would have justified his removal,\\n especially in light of his previous suspension for\\n similar misconduct.\\nJ.A. 21–22. While the first sentence states the correct legal\\nstandard, the Board did not provide any analysis of the\\nCarr factors. Moreover, the second sentence applies an in-\\ncorrect standard, averring that Mr. Smith’s misconduct\\nalone justified the agency’s action. Contrary to the Board’s\\nstatement, the merits of a whistleblower defense do not\\nturn on the strength of the agency’s evidence alone or on\\nwhether the misconduct justified removal. Those points\\nspeak to whether the agency met its burden to prove that\\nmisconduct occurred, discipline is warranted, and the cho-\\nsen penalty is reasonable, factors the agency must show by\\npreponderant evidence in every appeal from a disciplinary\\naction. See Pope v. U.S. Postal Serv., 114 F.3d 1144, 1147\\n(Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Hale v. Dep’t of Transp., 772 F.2d\\n882, 885 (Fed. Cir. 1985).\\n Where whistleblowing is at issue, however, the proper\\ninquiry is not whether the agency action is justified; it is\\nwhether the agency would have acted in the same way ab-\\nsent the whistleblowing. See Miller v. Dep’t of Justice,\\n842 F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The issue [in a whis-\\ntleblower reprisal case] is whether substantial evidence\\nsupports the Board’s determination that the Government\\nshowed independent causation by clear and convincing ev-\\nidence.”). “[T]he merits cannot be the determinative factor\\nthat there was no reprisal. A meritorious adverse action\\n\\f10 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nmust be set aside where there is reprisal.” Siler, 908 F.3d\\nat 1298–99 (quoting Sullivan v. Dep’t of the Navy, 720 F.2d\\n1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Nies, J., concurring)). Thus,\\nthe Board’s independent decision to sustain the disrespect-\\nful conduct charge—however strong the underlying evi-\\ndence—did not eliminate Mr. Smith’s reprisal defense.\\nAnd it does not excuse the Board from analyzing the entire\\nrecord and determining whether the agency clearly and\\nconvincingly proved that it would have removed Mr. Smith\\neven absent his whistleblowing, not merely that it could\\nhave justifiably done so. On remand, the Board must en-\\nsure that the agency is held to its “high burden of proof.”\\nSee Whitmore, 680 F.3d at 1367 (quoting 135 Cong. Rec.\\nH747–48 (daily ed. Mar. 21, 1989) (explanatory statement\\non Senate Amendment to S. 20)).\\n C\\n The Board further erred by failing to consider Carr fac-\\ntors 2 and 3 when analyzing whether the agency clearly\\nand convincingly proved that it would have removed\\nMr. Smith notwithstanding his whistleblowing. Though\\nwe have explained that Carr imposes no affirmative bur-\\nden on the agency to produce evidence for each of the three\\nfactors, see Whitmore, 680 F.3d at 1374, the Board cannot\\nignore record evidence relevant to the existence and\\nstrength of any motive to retaliate or the treatment of sim-\\nilar employees. Rather, the Board must “provide an in\\ndepth review and full discussion of the facts to explain its\\nreasoning.” Id. at 1368. This is especially true in a case\\nsuch as this one, where the record contains ample evidence\\nrelevant to these factors.\\n The Board should have considered the evidence rele-\\nvant to the strength of the agency’s motive to retaliate.\\nMr. Smith made a number of disclosures, most of which the\\nBoard failed to address. See, e.g., J.A. 818–19 (asserting\\nregion was “$47 million behind” in billing in April 2012),\\n822–956 (providing 134 pages detailing management\\n\\fSMITH v. GSA 11\\n\\n\\n\\nfailures in March 2014), 978–1039 (arguing agency should\\n“[r]eview the consistency in which all regions have ap-\\nplied . . . national policies and procedures” in July 2014),\\n1943–44 (describing “the road to ineffective management”\\nin November 2014), 1160–61 (requesting workload review\\nin January 2016), 1988–95 (asserting need for workload re-\\nform in February 2016). The agency introduced evidence\\nthat it had legitimate concerns regarding the accuracy and\\ntone of these emails, which may cut against a finding of\\nmotive. But it is also true that management repeatedly\\nthreatened Mr. Smith with discipline if he continued to dis-\\nclose perceived mismanagement outside of his immediate\\nreporting chain. 2 See J.A. 961 (“[A]ny\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Indeed, though Mr. Smith did not seek recovery\\nbased on his supervisor’s communication restriction in this\\ncase, its breadth may independently violate the Whistle-\\nblower Protection Act, which may in turn suggest a strong\\nmotivation on the part of the agency to silence Mr. Smith.\\nSee 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). The Act prohibits a “personnel\\naction” against an employee because of any information\\ndisclosure by such employee which the employee reasona-\\nbly believes evidences (i) a violation of any law, rule, or reg-\\nulation, or (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of\\nfunds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific\\ndanger to public health or safety. Id. The statute includes\\nand protects “any” disclosure that an employee “reasonably\\nbelieves” evidences misconduct or mismanagement. Id.\\n§ 2302(b)(8)(A); Greenspan v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs,\\n464 F.3d 1297, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006). And “the implemen-\\ntation or enforcement of any nondisclosure policy” is a pro-\\nhibited “personnel action.” 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A)(xi).\\nThe agency’s order that any communication that Mr. Smith\\nwished to transmit to managers outside of the group must\\nbe approved by a supervisor was a nondisclosure policy that\\n\\f12 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ncommunication . . . to managers outside of the [group]\\nmust be approved by me before doing so. Please note that\\nfailure to comply with these instructions may result in dis-\\nciplinary action.”). And though Mr. Smith’s work evalua-\\ntions had been generally positive prior to his\\nwhistleblowing, his managers in fact suspended him and\\nthen placed him on a performance plan because of his com-\\nmunications and disclosures. Further, the record suggests\\nthat agency managers were unhappy with Mr. Smith and\\nwere embarrassed by his whistleblowing. In response to\\none of Mr. Smith’s disclosures, the deciding official replied\\nto her colleagues:\\n Oh my gosh! So, what is the status of the action\\n with HR? We need to take action immediately!\\n This is absolutely unacceptable . . . . I’m embar-\\n rassed that he is representing [the group].\\nJ.A. 1987 (ellipsis in original). In another email, Mr. Au-\\ngustus “urge[d] [Mr. Smith] . . . to avoid deviating from or\\ndistorting verifiable facts in an effort to advance your sub-\\njective motives.” J.A. 1843. The Board erred by failing to\\naddress this evidence.\\n Similarly, the Board should have considered the\\nagency’s failure to introduce evidence relevant to Carr fac-\\ntor 3—treatment of non-whistleblowers who engaged in\\nsimilar misconduct. Though Mr. Smith was punished for\\nworking over a weekend, the undisputed record indicates\\nat least one of Mr. Smith’s colleagues completed weekend\\nwork on the same weekend as Mr. Smith. But the record\\ndoes not reflect whether that colleague was penalized in\\nany way. To the extent the agency failed to introduce evi-\\ndence on how this employee or other similarly situated em-\\nployees were treated, Carr factor 3 cannot support the\\n\\n\\nrestricted Mr. Smith’s ability to make such communica-\\ntions.\\n\\fSMITH v. GSA 13\\n\\n\\n\\nagency. See, e.g., Siler, 908 F.3d at 1299 (holding that\\nwhere there is “an absence of relevant comparator evi-\\ndence, the third Carr factor cannot favor the government”);\\nMiller, 842 F.3d at 1262 (“[T]he court may not simply guess\\nwhat might happen absent whistleblowing. The burden lies\\nwith the Government.”); Whitmore, 680 F.3d at 1374\\n(“Failure to [introduce comparator evidence] may be at the\\nagency’s peril.”).\\n D\\n Accordingly, we vacate the Board’s whistleblower anal-\\nysis and remand for it to apply the appropriate legal stand-\\nard and consider the relevant evidence.\\n II\\n We next review the Board’s decision to sustain the\\ncharges against Mr. Smith, which we review for substan-\\ntial evidence. See Long v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 635 F.3d 526,\\n530 (Fed. Cir. 2011). To determine whether substantial ev-\\nidence supports the Board, we must determine whether\\n“considering the record as a whole, the agency’s evidence is\\nsufficient to be found by a reasonable factfinder to meet the\\n[agency’s] evidentiary burden.” See Leatherbury v. Dep’t of\\nthe Army, 524 F.3d 1293, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting\\nBradley v. Veterans Admin., 900 F.2d 233, 234 (Fed. Cir.\\n1990)). It is not enough that record evidence exists that, if\\n“viewed in isolation, substantiate[s] the Board’s findings.”\\nUniversal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 478, 488\\n(1951). Instead, we set aside the Board’s decision if we\\n“cannot conscientiously find that the evidence supporting\\nthat decision is substantial, when viewed in the light that\\nthe record in its entirety furnishes, including the body of\\nevidence opposed to the Board’s view.” Id. at 488. “Any\\ndetermination by [the Board] that is based on findings\\nmade in the abstract and independent of the evidence\\nwhich fairly detracts from [its] conclusions is unreasonable\\nand, as such, is not supported by substantial evidence.”\\n\\f14 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nWhitmore, 680 F.3d at 1376. We address each of the three\\nsustained charges in turn.\\n A\\n First, the Board’s decision to sustain the charge of fail-\\nure to comply with IT policy lacks substantial evidence sup-\\nport. The parties do not dispute that, to prove this charge,\\nthe agency was required to show that the employee failed\\nto follow a proper, applicable policy. The agency asserted\\nthat Mr. Smith violated IT policies applicable to him when\\nhe failed to remove his PIV card from his laptop. In affirm-\\ning the agency’s charge, the Board cited evidence favorable\\nto the agency’s position. It noted that the policy requires\\nusers to remove PIV cards from their laptops, that\\nMr. Smith was trained in the IT policy, and that Mr. Smith\\ndid not remove his PIV card.\\n We conclude, however, that the record lacks substan-\\ntial evidence to show that this policy was applicable to\\nMr. Smith. The relevant policy states that “[a]ny person\\nwith a disability that does not allow the individual to uti-\\nlize a PIV card and laptop” is within the “groups of users\\n[that] are exempt” from the requirement to use a PIV cre-\\ndential. J.A. 1827 (emphasis added). The AJ held that this\\nexemption applies only to employees unable to use a PIV\\ncard and a laptop. Based on his interpretation, the AJ con-\\ncluded that because Mr. Smith was not facially exempt\\nfrom the policy and further failed to request a special ex-\\nemption, he failed to show that his supervisors condoned\\nhim leaving his PIV card in his laptop.\\n We disagree with the AJ’s unreasonable interpretation\\nof the policy. Moreover, the fact that Mr. Smith failed to\\nrequest a special exemption from the IT policy does not re-\\nsolve the issue of whether his supervisors condoned his ac-\\ntions, creating a de facto exemption. It is undisputed that\\nMr. Smith is a quadriplegic. It is undisputed that\\nMr. Smith’s supervisors were aware that he is a quadriple-\\ngic. Oral Arg. at 19:57–20:40, http://oralarguments.cafc.\\n\\fSMITH v. GSA 15\\n\\n\\n\\nuscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2018-1604.mp3 (conceding\\nsupervisors “knew that [Mr. Smith] had challenges with\\ndexterity” and “knew that he would have difficulty” com-\\nplying with IT policy). It is undisputed that he cannot\\nphysically remove a PIV card. Until the summer of 2016,\\nMr. Smith had never been corrected by his supervisors for\\nfailing to remove his PIV card and accordingly, he believed\\nhimself to be exempt from the PIV IT policy because of his\\ndisability. J.A. 365–68 (stating second supervisor was\\naware of Mr. Smith’s inability to remove PIV card because\\nthe supervisor had assisted Mr. Smith in moving offices),\\n436 (first supervisor agreeing she had never seen\\nMr. Smith remove a PIV card); Oral Arg. at 20:49–22:45\\n(conceding agency introduced no evidence contradicting\\nMr. Smith’s testimony on these points). The Board failed\\nto address this evidence. On this record, substantial evi-\\ndence does not support the Board’s decision to sustain this\\ncharge, and we reverse the Board’s decision sustaining this\\ncharge.\\n B\\n Second, the Board’s decision to sustain the weekend\\nwork specification, offered by the agency in support of its\\nfailure to follow supervisory instructions charge, similarly\\nlacks substantial evidence support. In sustaining the\\nagency’s specification, the Board stated that Mr. Augustus\\nhad instructed Mr. Smith not to work over the weekend\\nand that two days later, Mr. Smith nevertheless sent an\\nemail over the weekend. While each point is facially cor-\\nrect, the Board’s analysis is defective. Proof of a failure to\\nfollow instructions charge requires the agency to show that\\nan employee failed to follow a proper instruction, see Ham-\\nilton v. U.S. Postal Serv., 71 M.S.P.R. 547, 556 (1996), but\\nthe Board failed to discuss the propriety of Mr. Augustus’s\\ninstruction, despite facts that draw it into question. The\\nagency introduced no formal policy forbidding weekend\\nwork, no evidence that other employees had been in-\\nstructed to not work on the weekend, and no supporting\\n\\f16 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nrationale for imposing this ban on Mr. Smith alone. Oral\\nArg. at 36:41–37:52. Moreover, it was undisputed that\\nMr. Smith had regularly worked over the weekend to\\ntimely complete work due to his health issues; that the\\nemail at issue was written during business hours and re-\\nquired only minutes to complete over the weekend; and\\nthat he sent the email over the weekend only because an-\\nother employee first sent him information over the week-\\nend. 3 In light of the whole record, the Board’s\\ndetermination is unsupported by substantial evidence. Ac-\\ncordingly, we reverse the Board’s decision as to this speci-\\nfication.\\n We affirm the Board’s decision to sustain the remain-\\ning specifications of the failure to follow instructions\\ncharge. But because we have reversed the Board’s findings\\non one of the specifications underlying that charge, on re-\\nmand, the Board must determine whether the charge as a\\nwhole may be sustained.\\n C\\n We also affirm the Board’s decision sustaining the dis-\\nrespectful conduct charge. Mr. Smith urges us to hold that\\nthe Board also erred in its consideration of the specifica-\\ntions related to that charge, but for each, Mr. Smith merely\\nargues that circumstances excused his disrespectful con-\\nduct. See Pet’r’s Br. 30–37. Though, as discussed below,\\nthe Board must consider any mitigating circumstances in\\nits penalty analysis, substantial evidence supports the\\nBoard’s decision to sustain the specifications themselves.\\nSee Webster v. Dep’t of the Army, 911 F.2d 679, 684\\n(Fed. Cir. 1990) (affirming Board decision to sustain\\ncharges where findings were “undisputed by [petitioner],\\nwho admits to the conduct alleged but offers excuses”).\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 The record does not indicate whether Mr. Smith’s\\ncoworker was similarly disciplined for his weekend work.\\n\\fSMITH v. GSA 17\\n\\n\\n\\n III\\n Finally, we consider the Board’s decision that the\\nagency acted reasonably in removing Mr. Smith. In deter-\\nmining the reasonableness of the penalty imposed by an\\nagency, the Board considers the factors outlined in Douglas\\nv. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.B. 313 (1981). The\\npenalty chosen by the agency must represent a responsible\\nbalancing of the relevant Douglas factors. Mr. Smith ar-\\ngues that the agency’s analysis of the eleventh Douglas fac-\\ntor, “mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense,”\\nwhich include “unusual job tensions, personality prob-\\nlems, . . . or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of\\nothers involved in the matter,” id. at 332, was deficient and\\nthat the Board erred in affirming the agency’s penalty.\\n We do not reach this specific argument. The Board did\\nnot sustain all of the charges and we have concluded that\\nothers are not supported by substantial evidence. We have\\nalso vacated the Board’s analysis of Mr. Smith’s whistle-\\nblower defense. If, on remand, the Board concludes that\\nthe agency would not have removed Mr. Smith absent his\\nwhistleblowing, “the agency’s removal decision may not\\nstand.” Siler, 908 F.3d at 1298, 1300 (“The Board has no\\ndiscretion to affirm a penalty tainted by illegal reprisal,\\neven if the agency’s penalty might otherwise have been rea-\\nsonable.”); 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(2)(B). And if, on remand, the\\nBoard concludes otherwise, the Board must consider\\nwhether to mitigate the penalty in light of our reversal of\\ncertain charges. See, e.g., Hathaway v. Dep’t of Justice,\\n384 F.3d 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004).\\n Accordingly, we vacate the Board’s decision as to the\\nreasonableness of the penalty. See Wrocklage v. Dep’t of\\nHomeland Sec., 769 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). On\\nremand, the Board must consider whether the penalty of\\nremoval may be sustained or whether remand to the\\nagency is necessary to reassess the appropriate penalty. In\\naddition, the Board must perform a thorough analysis of\\n\\f18 SMITH v. GSA\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nthe mitigating circumstances identified by Mr. Smith—\\nparticularly that the statements underlying the disrespect-\\nful conduct charge were based on his belief that Mr. Augus-\\ntus was acting contrary to Mr. Smith’s position description.\\nSee, e.g., Pet’r’s Br. 30–37. The Board should also consider\\nthe propriety of the breadth of Mr. Smith’s supervisors’\\ncommunication bans in evaluating the reasonableness of\\nany penalty. See, e.g., J.A. 961 (“[A]ny communication that\\nyou wish to transmit (verbally or electronically) to manag-\\ners outside of the [group] must be approved by me . . . .”\\n(emphases added)), 513 (“[C]ommunicate and coordinate\\nwith me via email prior to generating, compiling and for-\\nwarding any reports, direction, data requests or analytical\\nnarratives to the region.” (emphasis added)).\\n CONCLUSION\\n We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments\\nand find them unpersuasive. For the reasons above, we\\nvacate the Board’s decision and remand for reconsideration\\nof Mr. Smith’s reprisal defense and the agency’s chosen\\npenalty.\\n AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART,\\n VACATED AND REMANDED\\n COSTS\\n Costs to petitioner.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}}],"truncated":false,"partial":false},"paginationData":{"pageIndex":34,"numItemsPerPage":100,"numTotalItems":31175,"offset":3400,"length":100}},"jwt":"eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSIsImtpZCI6IjVHZDBvd0g5MTM2eDZjc1FvbE1zcktNWUZoRVFoUm5PVVVybEpjOUhaUEEifQ.eyJyZWFkIjp0cnVlLCJwZXJtaXNzaW9ucyI6eyJyZXBvLmNvbnRlbnQucmVhZCI6dHJ1ZX0sImlhdCI6MTc4NjQ1NDA2NiwianRpIjoiODBjM2E4MjQtZTMyZS00ZjMzLWI0NDctMjFmZGVlMmNmZGEyIiwic3ViIjoiL2RhdGFzZXRzL2VpdGFucy1wdS9jbC1jb2RpbmctaW5wdXQiLCJleHAiOjE3ODY0NTc2NjYsImlzcyI6Imh0dHBzOi8vaHVnZ2luZ2ZhY2UuY28ifQ.oNK04MZ57cRS_1ru1FjW0XVyaDmIDiHd-DYs05t_mIUQPjQsVkgGeCuEeSkBgeLYpqoz2xoeHWSREXlt1CJlAw","displayUrls":true,"splitSizeSummaries":[{"config":"default","split":"train","numRows":31175,"numBytesParquet":1629387251}]},"discussionsStats":{"closed":0,"open":1,"total":1},"fullWidth":true,"hasGatedAccess":true,"hasFullAccess":true,"isEmbedded":false,"savedQueries":{"community":[],"user":[]}}">
id int64 | name string | name_abbreviation string | decision_date string | docket_number string | court string | casebody string | judge1 string | judge2 string | judge3 string | exactly_three_caps int64 | extra_judges string | judge_designations string | opinions_count int64 | majority_count int64 | dissent_count int64 | concurrence_count int64 | other_count int64 | primary_citation string | reporter string | volume null | resource_url string | precedential_status string | 010combined_count int64 | 020lead_count int64 | 030concurrence_count int64 | 035concurrenceinpart_count int64 | 040dissent_count int64 | year int64 | month int64 | messages list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4,637,346 | Andres Felipe ARIAS LEIVA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Et Al., Respondents-Appellees. | Andres Felipe Arias Leiva v. Warden | 2019-07-08 | 18-14328 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Marcus, Grant, Hull", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GRANT, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-14328 Date Filed: 07/08/2019 Page: 1 of 28\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COU... | MARCUS | GRANT | HULL | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637346/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,637,369 | David WILLIAMSON, Chase Hansel, Keith Becher, Ronald Gordon, Jeffery Koeberl, Central Florida Freethought Community, Space Coast Freethought Association, Humanist Community of the Space Coast, Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellees, v. BREVARD COUNTY, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant. | David Williamson v. Brevard County | 2019-07-08 | 17-15769 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Marcus, Grant, Hull", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "MARCUS, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-15769 Date Filed: 07/08/2019 Page: 1 of 45\n\n\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF ... | MARCUS | GRANT | HULL | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637369/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,637,454 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. $70,670.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, Et Al., Defendants, Kurvas Secret by W, Wilson Colorado, Miladis Salgado, Interested Parties-Appellants. | United States v. $70,670.00 in U.S. Currency | 2019-07-08 | 18-10312 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Pryor, Newsom, Branch", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-10312 Date Filed: 07/08/2019 Page: 1 of 21\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES ... | PRYOR | NEWSOM | BRANCH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637454/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,638,184 | Amy CORBITT, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of SDC, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael VICKERS, Defendant-Appellant. | Amy Corbitt v. Michael Vickers | 2019-07-10 | 17-15566 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Wilson, Branch, Anderson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888896/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "040dissent", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/o... | WILSON | BRANCH | ANDERSON | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4638184/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,638,213 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Jermayne WHYTE, A.K.A. Turtle, Jennifer Castro, Defendants - Appellants. | United States v. Jermayne Whyte | 2019-07-10 | 17-15223 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Pryor, Newsom, Branch", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-15223 Date Filed: 07/10/2019 Page: 1 of 43\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STA... | PRYOR | NEWSOM | BRANCH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4638213/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,638,214 | Amy Corbitt v. Michael Vickers | 2019-07-10 | 17-15566 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WILSON, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-15566 Date Filed: 07/10/2019 Page: 1 of 43\n\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n IN... | WILSON | BRANCH | ANDERSON | 1 | {"WILSON": ", Circuit", "BRANCH": ", Circuit", "ANDERSON": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4638214/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,638,693 | PIER 1 CRUISE EXPERTS, a Brazil Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. REVELEX CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. | Pier 1 Cruise Experts, Corp. v. Revelex Corp. | 2019-07-11 | 17-13956; 17-15623 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Pryor, Newsom, Vratil", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "NEWSOM, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-13956 Date Filed: 07/11/2019 Page: 1 of 33\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n IN ... | PRYOR | NEWSOM | VRATIL | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4638693/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,638,792 | Alex Cori TRIBUE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. | Alex Cori Tribue v. United States | 2019-07-11 | 18-10579 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Jordan, Grant, Hull", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "HULL, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-10579 Date Filed: 07/11/2019 Page: 1 of 18\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES CO... | JORDAN | GRANT | HULL | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4638792/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,639,571 | United States v. Terin Moss | 2019-07-15 | 17-10473 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, MARCUS, WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges: BY THE COURT: A member of this Court in active service having requested a poll on whether this case should be reheard en banc, and a majority of the judges... | ED CARNES | TJOFLAT | MARCUS | 2 | WILSON; WILLIAM PRYOR; MARTIN; JORDAN; ROSENBAUM; JILL PRYOR; NEWSOM; BRANCH; GRANT | {"ED CARNES": ", Chief", "TJOFLAT": ", Circuit", "MARCUS": ", Circuit", "WILSON": ", Circuit", "WILLIAM PRYOR": ", Circuit", "MARTIN": ", Circuit", "JORDAN": ", Circuit", "ROSENBAUM": ", Circuit", "JILL PRYOR": ", Circuit", "NEWSOM": ", Circuit", "BRANCH": ", Circuit", "GRANT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4639571/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,444,033 | UNITED STATES of America v. Terin MOSS | United States v. Moss | 2019-07-15 | No. 17-10473 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415470/"}]} | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8444033/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||||
4,640,619 | Thomas F. WORTHY, Individually and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated, James D. Adams, Individually and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated, Willcox-Lumpkin Co., Inc., Individually and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. the CITY OF PHENIX CITY, ALABAMA, Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., Appellees. | Thomas F. Worthy v. The City of Phenix City, Alabama | 2019-07-18 | 17-14718 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Tjoflat, Newsom, Antoon", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ANTOON, District Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-14718 Date Filed: 07/18/2019 Page: 1 of 34\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n I... | TJOFLAT | NEWSOM | ANTOON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4640619/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,641,347 | Thomas F. Worthy v. The City of Phenix City, Alabama | 2019-07-18 | 17-14718 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before TJOFLAT and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON, * District Judge.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ANTOON, District Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-14718 Date Filed: 07/18/2019 Page: 1 of 34\n\n\n ... | TJOFLAT | NEWSOM | ANTOON | 1 | {"TJOFLAT": ", Circuit", "NEWSOM": ", Circuit", "ANTOON": ", District"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641347/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,641,346 | Jonathan CORBETT, Petitioner, v. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. | Jonathan Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration | 2019-07-19 | 15-15717 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Tjoflat, Marcus, Rosenbaum", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "MARCUS, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 15-15717 Date Filed: 07/19/2019 Page: 1 of 31\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES C... | TJOFLAT | MARCUS | ROSENBAUM | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641346/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,641,364 | ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, v. the WATTLES COMPANY, a Washington Corporation, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee. | Ace American Insurance Company v. The Wattles Company | 2019-07-19 | 17-15392 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-15392 Date Filed: 07/19/2019 Page: 1 of 46\n\n\n\n [PUBL... | ED CARNES | ANDERSON | JULIE CARNES | 1 | {"ED CARNES": ", Chief", "ANDERSON": ", Circuit", "JULIE CARNES": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641364/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,641,544 | Jerome Julius WEEKS, A.K.A. Clarence Royden Weekes, Etc., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. | Jerome Julius Weeks v. United States | 2019-07-22 | 17-10049 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Tjoflat, Jordan, Anderson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-10049 Date Filed: 07/22/2019 Page: 1 of 35\n\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STA... | TJOFLAT | JORDAN | ANDERSON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641544/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,641,666 | FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for the Buckhead Community Bank, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. R. Charles LOUDERMILK, Sr., Hugh C. Aldredge, David B. Allman, Marvin Cosgray, Louis J. Douglass, III, Gregory W. Holden, Larry P. Martindale, Darryl L. Overall, Defendants - Appellants. | Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. R. Charles Loudermilk, Sr. | 2019-07-22 | 16-17315 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Tjoflat, Martin, Anderson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 16-17315 Date Filed: 07/22/2019 Page: 1 of 29\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT ... | TJOFLAT | MARTIN | ANDERSON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641666/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,641,864 | Jerome Julius Weeks v. United States | 2019-07-22 | 17-10049 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-10049 Date Filed: 07/22/2019 Page: 1 of 35\n\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n\n ... | TJOFLAT | JORDAN | ANDERSON | 1 | {"TJOFLAT": ", Circuit", "JORDAN": ", Circuit", "ANDERSON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641864/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,641,863 | CROWLEY MARITIME CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Defendant-Appellee. | Crowley Maritime Corporation v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA | 2019-07-23 | 18-10953 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Carnes, Martin, Anderson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-10953 Date Filed: 07/23/2019 Page: 1 of 42\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF ... | CARNES | MARTIN | ANDERSON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641863/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,642,087 | In RE: Wissam T. HAMMOUD, Petitioner. | In Re: Wissam Hammoud | 2019-07-23 | 19-12458-G | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Pryor, Jordan, Hull", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 19-12458 Date Filed: 07/23/2019 Page: 1 of 12\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES ... | PRYOR | JORDAN | HULL | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4642087/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,642,388 | Stan MCADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY 911 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT, INC, THE, an Alabama Domestic Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. | Stan McAdams v. The Jefferson County 911 Emergency Commuications District, Inc. | 2019-07-24 | 18-13781 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Carnes, Pryor, Anderson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-13781 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 1 of 8\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n\n ... | CARNES | PRYOR | ANDERSON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4642388/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,642,518 | Stan McAdams v. The Jefferson County 911 Emergency Commuications District, Inc. | 2019-07-24 | 18-13781 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-13781 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 1 of 8\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n ... | ED CARNES | JILL PRYOR | ANDERSON | 1 | {"ED CARNES": ", Chief", "JILL PRYOR": ", Circuit", "ANDERSON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4642518/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,642,519 | K.T., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Defendant-Appellee. | K.T. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. | 2019-07-24 | 17-14237 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Carnes, Rosenbaum, Hull", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ED CARNES, Chief Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 1 of 19\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n IN THE UNITED STA... | CARNES | ROSENBAUM | HULL | 1 | {} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4642519/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,642,520 | HIGHPOINT TOWER TECHNOLOGY INC., Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. | Highpoint Tower Technology Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue | 2019-07-24 | 18-10394 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-10394 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 1 of 29\n\n\n [PU... | ED CARNES | ANDERSON | JULIE CARNES | 1 | {"ED CARNES": ", Chief", "ANDERSON": ", Circuit", "JULIE CARNES": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4642520/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,642,856 | In RE: The HOME DEPOT INC., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. Northeastern Engineers Federal Credit Union, Pittsfield Cooperative Bank, Phenix-Girard Bank, Kelsey O'Brien, First Financial Credit Union, First Choice Federal Credit Union, Southern Chautauqua Federal Credit Union, Gary Lowenthal, Sara Saffran, Bar... | Ne. Eng'rs Fed. Credit Union v. Home Depot, Inc. (In Re Home Depot Inc.) | 2019-07-25 | 17-14741 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Gilman, Pryor, Tjoflat, William", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-14741 Date Filed: 07/25/2019 Page: 1 of 55\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES C... | GILMAN | PRYOR | TJOFLAT | 1 | WILLIAM | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4642856/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||
4,642,959 | In re: Ulysses Cannon | 2019-07-25 | 19-12533 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 19-12533 Date Filed: 07/25/2019 Page: 1 of 13\n\n\n >38%/,6+@\n\n\n ,1 7+( 81,7(' 67$7(6 &2857 2) $33($/6\n... | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4642959/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||||||
8,444,045 | IN RE: Ulysses CANNON | In re Cannon | 2019-07-25 | No. 19-12533-F | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Carnes, Hull, Tjoflat", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415483/", "author_raw": ""}]} | CARNES | HULL | TJOFLAT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8444045/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,643,437 | GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut Corporation, Individually and as the Representative of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, E&G, Inc., a West Virginia Corporation, Individually and as the Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. SAFEMARK SYSTEMS, LP, Defendant - Appellee... | Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Safemark Systems, LP | 2019-07-26 | 18-12511; 18-15232 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Pryor, Newsom, Branch", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-12511 Date Filed: 07/26/2019 Page: 1 of 39\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n IN THE UNITE... | PRYOR | NEWSOM | BRANCH | 1 | {} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4643437/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,643,997 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isaac FELDMAN, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Isaac Feldman | 2019-07-30 | 17-13443 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Pryor, Newsom, Branch", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9889022/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "030concurrence", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/... | PRYOR | NEWSOM | BRANCH | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4643997/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,644,084 | In RE: Neil NAVARRO, Petitioner. | In Re: Neil Navarro | 2019-07-30 | 19-12612-E | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Carnes, Rosenbaum, Black", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9889028/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "030concurrence", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/... | CARNES | ROSENBAUM | BLACK | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4644084/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,644,085 | CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO & CO., Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Defendants-Appellees. | City of Miami Gardens v. Wells Fargo & Co. | 2019-07-30 | 18-13152 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Pryor, Newsom, Branch", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-13152 Date Filed: 07/30/2019 Page: 1 of 49\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEA... | PRYOR | NEWSOM | BRANCH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4644085/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,644,102 | In RE: Felix M. PALACIOS, Petitioner. | In re: Felix M. Palacios | 2019-07-30 | 19-12571-G | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Wilson, Rosenbaum, Newsom", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9889030/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "030concurrence", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest... | WILSON | ROSENBAUM | NEWSOM | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4644102/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,644,217 | Rolando Gus PAEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee. | Rolando Gus Paez v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections | 2019-07-31 | 16-15705 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Tjoflat, Martin, Traxler", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9889034/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "035concurrenceinpart", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api... | TJOFLAT | MARTIN | TRAXLER | 1 | {} | 5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4644217/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,644,218 | Jamil Abdullah AL-AMIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, Commissioner, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents - Appellees. | Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin v. Warden | 2019-07-31 | 17-14865 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Jill, Pryor, Tallman, Wilson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "WILSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-14865 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 1 of 21\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COUR... | JILL | PRYOR | TALLMAN | 1 | WILSON | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4644218/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||
4,644,589 | In RE: Drew Jamal POLLARD, Petitioner. | In re: Drew Pollard | 2019-07-31 | 19-12538-J | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Carnes, Tjoflat, Rosenbaum", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 19-12538 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 1 of 6\n\n\n [PUBLISH]\n\n IN THE UNITE... | CARNES | TJOFLAT | ROSENBAUM | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4644589/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,635,942 | WAYNE J. GRIFFIN ELECTRIC, INC., Petitioner v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, Respondent | Wayne J. Griffin Electric, Inc v. Secretary of Labor | 2019-07-02 | 17-1189 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Srinivasan, Katsas, Ginsburg", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge KATSAS", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued September 21, 2018 Decided July 2, 2019\n\n ... | SRINIVASAN | KATSAS | GINSBURG | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4635942/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,635,943 | Sunday IYOHA, Appellant v. ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, Appellee | Sunday Iyoha v. Architect of the Capitol | 2019-07-02 | 17-5252 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Garland, Rogers, Griffith", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n\nArgued September 20, 2018 Decided July 2, 2019\n... | GARLAND | ROGERS | GRIFFITH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4635943/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,635,944 | Doris JEFFRIES, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant v. VOLUME SERVICES AMERICA, INC., Doing Business as Centerplate and Centerplate/NBSE and Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Appellees | Doris Jeffries v. Volume Services America, Inc. | 2019-07-02 | 18-7139 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Henderson, Rogers, Edwards", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued February 21, 2019 Decided July 2, 2019\n\n No. 18-7139\n\n DORIS JEFFRIES, ON BEH... | HENDERSON | ROGERS | EDWARDS | 1 | {} | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4635944/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,635,945 | David T. MYERS, Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Appellee | Myers v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue Service | 2019-07-02 | 18-1003 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Henderson, Pillard, Ginsburg", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued December 4, 2018 Decided July 2, 2019\n\n No. 18-1003\n\n DA... | HENDERSON | PILLARD | GINSBURG | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4635945/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,635,946 | CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES AGAINST TOXICS, Et Al., Petitioners v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents American Chemistry Council, Et Al., Intervenors | California Communities Against Toxics v. Envtl. Prot. Agency | 2019-07-02 | 18-1163 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Henderson, Rogers, Sentelle", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the court by Circuit Judge ROGERS", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued April 9, 2019 Decided July 2, 2019\n\n ... | HENDERSON | ROGERS | SENTELLE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4635946/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,637,119 | David Myers v. Cmsnr. IRS | 2019-07-02 | 18-1003 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Before: HENDERSON and PILLARD, Circuit Judges, and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued December 4, 2018 Decided July 2, 2019\n\n ... | HENDERSON | PILLARD | GINSBURG | 1 | {"HENDERSON": ", Circuit", "PILLARD": ", Circuit", "GINSBURG": ", Senior Circuit"} | 4 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637119/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,637,116 | UNITED STATES of America, EX REL. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP, and Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, Appellant v. BASF CORPORATION, Et Al., Appellees | United States Ex Rel. Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP v. Basf Corp. | 2019-07-05 | 18-7123 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Henderson, Srinivasan, Pillard", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued May 13, 2019 Decided July 5, 2019\n... | HENDERSON | SRINIVASAN | PILLARD | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637116/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,637,117 | Ivy BROWN, in Her Individual Capacity and as Representative of the Certified Class, Appellant v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, a Municipal Corporation, Appellee | Brown v. Dist. of Columbia | 2019-07-05 | 17-7152 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Henderson, Wilkins, Edwards", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued January 14, 2019 Decided July 5, 2019\n\n ... | HENDERSON | WILKINS | EDWARDS | 1 | {} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637117/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,637,118 | ATLAS AIR, INC. and Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc., Appellees v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Et Al., Appellants | Atlas Air, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of | 2019-07-05 | 17-7172 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Griffith, Edwards, Randolph", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued September 7, 2018 Decided July 5, 2019\n\n ... | GRIFFITH | EDWARDS | RANDOLPH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637118/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
7,336,313 | MERCK & CO., INC. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES | Merck & Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. | 2019-07-08 | Case No. 19-cv-01738 (APM) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254233/"}]} | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336313/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||||
7,336,499 | Oscar RODRIGUEZ v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE | Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep't of the Air Force | 2019-07-08 | Case No. 1:18-cv-00744 (TNM) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "McFadden", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254419/", "author_raw": ""}]} | MCFADDEN | MCFADDEN | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336499/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,637,567 | TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, INC., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Temple Allied Professionals, Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals, Intervenor | Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. | 2019-07-09 | 18-1150; C/w 18-1164 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Henderson, Tatel, Ginsburg", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge GINSBURG.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued February 25, 2019 Decided July 9, 20... | HENDERSON | TATEL | GINSBURG | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637567/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,639,045 | KORNITZKY GROUP, LLC, D/B/A AeroBearings, LLC, Petitioner v. Daniel K. ELWELL, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board, Respondents | Kornitzky Group, LLC v. Daniel Elwell | 2019-07-12 | 18-1160 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Srinivasan, Edwards, Randolph", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SRINIVASAN", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued January 11, 2019 Decided July 12, 2019\... | SRINIVASAN | EDWARDS | RANDOLPH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4639045/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,344,519 | Eugene HUDSON, Jr. v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES | Hudson v. Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps. | 2019-07-12 | Civil Action No. 17-1867 (JEB) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8312956/"}]} | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8344519/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||||
7,336,493 | Usha SAGARWALA v. L. Francis CISSNA | Sagarwala v. Cissna | 2019-07-15 | Civil Action No.: 18-2860 (RC) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Contreras", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254413/", "author_raw": ""}]} | CONTRERAS | CONTRERAS | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336493/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
7,336,763 | Robert MURPHY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA | Murphy v. Dist. of Columbia | 2019-07-15 | Civil Action No. 18-1478 (JDB) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Bates", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254683/", "author_raw": ""}]} | BATES | BATES | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336763/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
7,336,768 | Sebastian PHILLIPS v. Richard V. SPENCER, Secretary of the Navy | Phillips v. Spencer | 2019-07-15 | No. 11-cv-02021 (EGS) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Sullivan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254688/", "author_raw": ""}]} | SULLIVAN | SULLIVAN | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336768/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,639,815 | GLH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Appellant v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee | GLH Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n | 2019-07-16 | 18-1176 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Rogers, Srinivasan, Pillard", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SRINIVASAN", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued January 9, 2019 Decided July 16, 2019\n\... | ROGERS | SRINIVASAN | PILLARD | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4639815/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,639,816 | AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, Et Al., Appellees v. Donald J. TRUMP, in His Official Capacity as President of the United States, Et Al., Appellants | American Federation of Govt. v. Donald Trump | 2019-07-16 | 18-5289 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Griffith, Srinivasan, Randolph", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued April 4, 2019 Decided July 16, 2019\n... | GRIFFITH | SRINIVASAN | RANDOLPH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4639816/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
7,336,764 | SCOTTSDALE CAPITAL ADVISORS CORPORATION v. FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY | Scottsdale Capital Advisors Corp. v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth. | 2019-07-16 | Case No. 18-cv-2973 (CRC) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254684/"}]} | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336764/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||||
4,640,292 | Randy Brown v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (ORDER) | 2019-07-17 | 18-7174 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "BEFORE: Rogers, Griffith, and Katsas, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the November 29, 2018 order to show cause why this", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA... | ROGERS | GRIFFITH | KATSAS | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4640292/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,641,199 | Randy Brown v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (ORDER) | 2019-07-17 | 18-7174 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "BEFORE: Rogers, Griffith, and Katsas, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the November 29, 2018 order to show cause why this", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA... | ROGERS | GRIFFITH | KATSAS | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641199/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
7,336,765 | CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE | Cause of Action Inst. v. Internal Revenue Serv. | 2019-07-17 | No. 16-cv-2354 (KBJ) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Jackson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254685/", "author_raw": ""}]} | NO_JUDGES | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336765/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||||
7,336,932 | Barak CHACOTY v. Mike POMPEO, U.S. Secretary of State | Chacoty v. Pompeo | 2019-07-17 | Civil Action No. 14-764 (RDM) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Moss", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254852/", "author_raw": ""}]} | MOSS | MOSS | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336932/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
7,336,496 | John E. HORSEY v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE | Horsey v. U.S. Dep't of State | 2019-07-18 | No. 1:14-cv-1568 (KBJ) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Jackson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254416/", "author_raw": ""}]} | NO_JUDGES | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336496/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||||
7,336,762 | Cheryl Renee SAID v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION | Said v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. | 2019-07-18 | Civil Action No. 15-1289 (RBW) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Walton", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254682/", "author_raw": ""}]} | WALTON | WALTON | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336762/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,641,193 | Velma OLU-COLE, Parent and Next Friend of M.K., Appellant v. E.L. HAYNES PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL, Appellee | Velma Olu-Cole v. E.L. Haynes Public Charter Sc | 2019-07-19 | 18-7028 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Rogers, Millett, Ginsburg", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued November 9, 2018 Decided July 19, 2019\n\n ... | ROGERS | MILLETT | GINSBURG | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641193/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,641,194 | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Rodney CLASS, Appellant | United States v. Rodney Class | 2019-07-19 | 15-3015 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Griffith, Srinivasan, Sentelle", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued March 13, 2019 Decided July 19, 2019\... | GRIFFITH | SRINIVASAN | SENTELLE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641194/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,641,195 | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Michael M. MONZEL, Appellant | United States v. Michael Monzel | 2019-07-19 | 16-3108 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Rogers, Millett, Katsas", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued January 23, 2019 Decided July 19, 2019\n\n ... | ROGERS | MILLETT | KATSAS | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641195/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,641,196 | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner v. INGREDION INCORPORATED, D/B/A Penford Products Co., Respondent Local 100G, Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Intervenor | Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ingredion Inc. | 2019-07-19 | 18-1155; C/w 18-1244 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Rogers, Srinivasan, Wilkins", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the court by Circuit Judge ROGERS", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued May 6, 2019 Decided July 19, 2019\n\n ... | ROGERS | SRINIVASAN | WILKINS | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641196/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,641,197 | IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE, Et Al., Petitioners v. Andrew WHEELER, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents Albemarle Corporation, Et Al., Intervenors | Idaho Conservation League v. Andrew Wheeler | 2019-07-19 | 18-1141 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Henderson, Griffith, Sentelle", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued March 13, 2019 Decided July 19, 2019\n... | HENDERSON | GRIFFITH | SENTELLE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641197/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,641,198 | D.C. ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Et Al., Appellants v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Et Al., Appellees | D.C. Ass'n of Chartered Pub. Sch. v. Dist. of Columbia | 2019-07-19 | 17-7155 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Henderson, Srinivasan, Millett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SRINIVASAN", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued November 5, 2018 Decided July 19, 2019... | HENDERSON | SRINIVASAN | MILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641198/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
7,336,933 | ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY AFFILIATED PLANS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY | Ass'n for Cmty. Affiliated Plans v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury | 2019-07-19 | Civil Case No. 18-2133 (RJL) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Leon", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254853/", "author_raw": ""}]} | LEON | LEON | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336933/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
7,336,667 | BRAEBURN INC. v. UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, and Indivior Inc., Intervenor-Defendant | Braeburn Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin. | 2019-07-22 | Civil Action No. 19-982 (BAH) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Howell", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254587/", "author_raw": ""}]} | HOWELL | HOWELL | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336667/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
7,336,668 | BETHESDA HEALTH, INC. v. Alex M. AZAR II, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services | Bethesda Health, Inc. v. Azar | 2019-07-23 | Civil Action No. 18-875 (RMC) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Collyer", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254588/", "author_raw": ""}]} | COLLYER | COLLYER | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336668/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
7,336,841 | Teman CHOW v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY | Chow v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth. | 2019-07-23 | Case No. 1:19-cv-01354 (TNM) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "McFadden", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254761/", "author_raw": ""}]} | MCFADDEN | MCFADDEN | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336841/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
8,344,506 | Mary E. CHAMBERS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA | Chambers v. Dist. of Columbia | 2019-07-24 | Civil Action No. 14-2032 (RBW) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8312943/"}]} | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8344506/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||||
7,336,845 | Donald J. TRUMP v. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES | Trump v. Comm on Ways & Ways | 2019-07-25 | Case No. 1:19-cv-02173 (TNM) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "McFadden", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254765/", "author_raw": ""}]} | MCFADDEN | MCFADDEN | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336845/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,643,277 | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Jerry MCILWAIN, Appellant | United States v. Jerry McIlwain | 2019-07-26 | 18-3087 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, TATEL, Circuit Judge, and SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge GARLAND", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued M... | GARLAND | TATEL | SENTELLE | 1 | {"GARLAND": ", Chief", "TATEL": ", Circuit", "SENTELLE": ", Senior Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4643277/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,643,278 | In Re: Sealed Case | In re: Sealed Case | 2019-07-26 | 17-1212 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Griffith, Srinivasan, Ginsburg", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge GINSBURG.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued April 2, 2019 Decided July 26... | GRIFFITH | SRINIVASAN | GINSBURG | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4643278/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
7,336,934 | Ammar AL-BALUCHI a/k/a Ali Abdul Aziz Ali v. Mark T. ESPER, Secretary of Defense | Al-Baluchi v. Esper | 2019-07-29 | Civil Action. No. 08-2083 (PLF) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Friedman", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254854/", "author_raw": ""}]} | FRIEDMAN | FRIEDMAN | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336934/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,643,874 | In re: Sealed Case | 2019-07-30 | 19-5068 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "BEFORE: Tatel, Millett, and Pillard, Circuit Judges UNDER SEAL OPINION NOT AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "010combined", "text": "UNDER SEAL\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRC... | TATEL | MILLETT | PILLARD | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4643874/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,643,875 | Elisa R. CRUZ, Appellant v. Kevin K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Appellee | Elisa Cruz v. Kevin McAleenan | 2019-07-30 | 17-5113 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Griffith, Wilkins, Williams", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKINS", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued December 10, 2018 Decided July 30, 2019\n\n ... | GRIFFITH | WILKINS | WILLIAMS | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4643875/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,643,876 | AMERICAN CLINICAL LABORATORY ASSOCIATION, Appellant v. Alex Michael AZAR, II, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee | American Clinical Laboratory v. Alex Azar, II | 2019-07-30 | 18-5312 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Griffith, Millett, Pillard", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge PILLARD", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued April 23, 2019 Decided July 30, 2019\n\n... | GRIFFITH | MILLETT | PILLARD | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4643876/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,444,050 | IN RE: SEALED CASE | In re Sealed | 2019-07-30 | No. 19-5068; C/w 19-5100, 19-5102, 19-5103 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Millett, Pillard, Tatel", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415488/", "author_raw": ""}]} | MILLETT | PILLARD | TATEL | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8444050/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
7,336,585 | INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES v. UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY | Institute for Plicy Studies v. U.S. Cent. Intelligence Agency | 2019-07-31 | Civil Case No. 06-960 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Lamberth", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254505/", "author_raw": ""}]} | LAMBERTH | LAMBERTH | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336585/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
7,336,839 | ATLAS BREW WORKS, LLC v. William P. BARR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States | Atlas Brew Works, LLC v. Barr | 2019-07-31 | Case No. 19-cv-79 (CRC) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Cooper", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254759/", "author_raw": ""}]} | COOPER | COOPER | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336839/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
7,336,846 | AMERICAN TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION v. Wilbur ROSS | Am. Tunaboat Ass'n v. Ross | 2019-07-31 | Case No. 1:19-cv-01011 (TNM) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "McFadden", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/7254766/", "author_raw": ""}]} | MCFADDEN | MCFADDEN | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/7336846/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,636,001 | QUIEDAN COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Rebar Trade Action Coalition, Defendants-Appellees | Quiedan Company v. United States | 2019-07-02 | 2018-1962 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Reyna, Wallach, Taranto", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "TARANTO, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n QUIEDAN COMPANY,\n Plaintiff-Appellant\n\n ... | REYNA | WALLACH | TARANTO | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4636001/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,636,003 | KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee | Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Graco Children's Products, Inc | 2019-07-02 | 2018-1259, 2018-1260 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Moore, Reyna, Chen", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "REYNA, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC.,\n Appellant\n\n ... | MOORE | REYNA | CHEN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4636003/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,636,556 | ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Oxford University Innovation LTD., Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Wissenschaften E v. Plaintiffs-Appellants v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, Dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, Mayo Clinic, Defendants-Appellees | Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC | 2019-07-03 | 2017-2508 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n ATHEN... | PROST | NEWMAN | LOURIE | 2 | DYK; MOORE; O'MALLEY; REYNA; WALLACH; TARANTO; CHEN; HUGHES; STOLL | {"PROST": ", Chief", "NEWMAN": ", Circuit", "LOURIE": ", Circuit", "DYK": ", Circuit", "MOORE": ", Circuit", "O'MALLEY": ", Circuit", "REYNA": ", Circuit", "WALLACH": ", Circuit", "TARANTO": ", Circuit", "CHEN": ", Circuit", "HUGHES": ", Circuit", "STOLL": ", Circuit"} | 9 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4636556/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||
4,637,120 | WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. 3M COMPANY, GTA-NHT, Inc., Dba Northstar Chemical, Defendants-Appellees | Westech Aerosol Corporation v. 3m Company | 2019-07-05 | 2018-1699 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Lourie, Mayer, Reyna", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "REYNA, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION,\n Plaintiff-Appellant\n\n ... | LOURIE | MAYER | REYNA | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637120/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,637,122 | In RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC, Appellant | In Re: Global Ip Holdings LLC | 2019-07-05 | 2018-1426 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Moore, Reyna, Stoll", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STOLL, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC,\n Appellant\n ... | MOORE | REYNA | STOLL | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637122/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,637,124 | Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services | 2019-07-05 | 17-2508 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n July 5, 2019\n\n ERRATUM\n ______________________\n\n ... | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637124/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||||||
4,637,981 | TQ DELTA, LLC, Appellant v. DISH NETWORK LLC, Appellee | Tq Delta, LLC v. Dish Network LLC | 2019-07-10 | 2018-1799 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Newman, Linn, Wallach", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "WALLACH, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n TQ DELTA, LLC,\n Appellant\n\n ... | NEWMAN | LINN | WALLACH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637981/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,637,982 | GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellant v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Appellee | General Electric Company v. United Technologies Corp. | 2019-07-10 | 2017-2497 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Reyna, Taranto, Hughes", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888892/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "030concurrence", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4... | REYNA | TARANTO | HUGHES | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4637982/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,638,039 | Stephen QUAKE, Hei-Mun Christina Fan, Appellants v. Yuk-Ming Dennis LO, Rossa Wai Kwun Chiu, Kwan Chee Chan, Appellees | Quake v. Lo | 2019-07-10 | 2018-1779, 2018-1780, 2018-1782 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Reyna, Chen, Hughes", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "CHEN, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n STEPHEN QUAKE, HEI-MUN CHRISTINA FAN,\n Appellants\n\n ... | REYNA | CHEN | HUGHES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4638039/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,638,040 | CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant v. TQ DELTA, LLC, Appellee ARRIS Group, INC., Appellant v. TQ Delta, LLC, Appellee | Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Tq Delta, LLC | 2019-07-10 | 2018-1806; 2018-1917 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Newman, Linn, Wallach", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "WALLACH, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,\n Appellant\n\n ... | NEWMAN | LINN | WALLACH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4638040/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,641,907 | AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee | Automotive Body Parts Ass'n v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC | 2019-07-11 | 2018-1613 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Hughes, Schall, Stoll", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STOLL, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS ASSOCIATION,\n Plaintiff-Appellant\n\n ... | HUGHES | SCHALL | STOLL | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641907/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,639,125 | Sri International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. | 2019-07-12 | 17-2223 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STOLL, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\n ... | LOURIE | O'MALLEY | STOLL | 1 | {"LOURIE": ", Circuit", "O'MALLEY": ", Circuit", "STOLL": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4639125/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,639,126 | SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Appellant v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD., Appellee | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd. | 2019-07-12 | 2018-2007; 2018-2012 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Newman, Schall, O'Malley", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "O'MALLEY, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,\n Appellant\n\n ... | NEWMAN | SCHALL | O'MALLEY | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4639126/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,639,129 | INDIVIOR INC., Fka Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., Indivior UK Limited, Fka RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Fka MonoSol Rx, LLC, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, S.A., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc., Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Teva P... | Indivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, S.A. | 2019-07-12 | 2017-2587, 2018-1010, 2018-1058, 2018-1062, 2018-1114, 2018-1115, 2018-1176, 2018-1177; 2018-1949, 2018-2045 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Newman, Mayer, Lourie", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888918/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "040dissent", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opin... | NEWMAN | MAYER | LOURIE | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4639129/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,646,151 | JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO., LTD., NAC Group Limited, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee | Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. v. United States | 2019-07-15 | 2018-2298 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Reyna, Wallach, Taranto", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "WALLACH, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO., LTD.,\n NAC GROUP LIMITED,\n ... | REYNA | WALLACH | TARANTO | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4646151/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,639,884 | BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee | Bechtel National, Inc. v. United States | 2019-07-16 | 2018-2055 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Newman, Schall, Dyk", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "DYK, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC.,\n Plaintiff-Appellant\n\n ... | NEWMAN | SCHALL | DYK | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4639884/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,640,255 | HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD, Appellant v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Appellee | Hejran Hejrat Co. Ltd v. US Army Corps of Engineers | 2019-07-17 | 2018-2206 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Newman, Dyk, Wallach", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "DYK, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n HEJRAN HEJRAT CO. LTD,\n Appellant\n\n ... | NEWMAN | DYK | WALLACH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4640255/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,641,256 | Robert Wesley SMITH, Petitioner v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent | Smith v. Gen. Servs. Admin. | 2019-07-19 | 2018-1604 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Wallach, Taranto, Stoll", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STOLL, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n ROBERT WESLEY SMITH,\n Petitioner\n\n ... | WALLACH | TARANTO | STOLL | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4641256/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 7 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.